J.L. AND J.L., PETITIONERS,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida First District Court of Appeal granted a petition to quash a writ of bodily attachment because the juvenile court failed to properly serve the petitioners with the order to show cause, despite having jurisdiction to hold them in contempt.
A juvenile court has jurisdiction to hold parents in contempt for failure to appear at contempt proceedings, but a writ of bodily attachment must be quashed if the petitioners were not properly served with the order to show cause.
[1] A party does not waive the right to challenge defective service of process by appearing at a hearing to contest jurisdiction unless the party also explicitly contests ser…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“a party loses its right to contest default final judgment on grounds of defective service of process by entering general appearance unless it also contests service of process or raises issue of personal jurisdiction”
Explaining that appearance at hearing to contest jurisdiction does not waive the right to challenge service of process
Petitioners failed to appear at contempt proceedings in juvenile court and were subject to a writ of bodily attachment. They sought to quash the writ …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Waiver Of Service Defects cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioners sought to quash a writ of bodily attachment based on their failure to appear at contempt proceedings, on the grounds that the juvenile court did not have jurisdiction to find them in contempt, and because they were not properly served with the order to show cause. We find that the juvenile court was authorized to hold petitioners in contempt. See, e.g., In re Elrod, 455 So.2d 1325, 1327 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Husky v. Safer, 419 So.2d 1158, 1159 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). However, we determine that the trial court erred in denying petitioners’ motion to quash a writ of bodily attachment, because the record does not demonstrate that they were properly served. See Fla. R. Juv. P. 8.150(c)(2). Petitioners’ appearance at the hearing to contest jurisdiction and object based on lack of service of process did not waive service. See Caldwell v. Caldwell, 921 So.2d 759, 760 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006) (holding that a party loses its right to contest default final judgment on grounds of defective service of process by entering general appearance unless it also contests service of process or raises issue of personal jurisdiction). The petition for writ of certiorari is GRANTED, and the order of the trial court is quashed.
ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Contempt of Jack R. Elrod. In re The Interest of K.N.L., 455 So. 2d 1325 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Caldwell v. Caldwell, 921 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Husky v. Honorable Louis Safer, 419 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)