ELLIS K. ORLOWITZ, APPELLANT,
v.
RITA JUNE ORLOWITZ, APPELLEE
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.
This interlocutory appeal addresses whether a trial court has authority to temporarily change custody of a minor pending a full hearing on a petition for modification. The court affirmed the temporary custody change to the mother, holding that while the initial ex parte order was erroneous, the chancellor had jurisdiction and the error was cured by subsequent hearings.
The trial court had jurisdiction to make the temporary change of custody despite the initial ex parte order being erroneous, as the error was cured by subsequent hearings with notice to both parties. The appellate court found no clear showing of abuse of discretion in the chancellor's decision to award temporary custody to the mother pending the full hearing.
“the chancellor had the jurisdiction to make the temporary change of custody, and this error was cured by hearings held by the court on February 19 and February 26”
Establishes that while the ex parte order was erroneous, subsequent hearings with notice cured the defect and provided valid jurisdictional basis
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEllis Orlowitz appealed a temporary custody order in a divorce case involving a ten-year-old daughter. The chancellor initially entered an order on Fe…
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 Temporary Custody Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order temporarily changing the custody provision of a divorce decree. The principal question presented is whether or not a chancellor has the power to change custody, upon an emergency basis, pending a full hearing upon a petition for change custody. There is also presented the contention that the petition is insufficient in substance, and the further contention that the court abused its discretion in making the temporary change.
We have examined the record presented, and we are impelled to the conclusion that the court’s first order, dated February 16, 1965, which was entered solely upon the petition of the mother and without notice, was erroneous. Nevertheless, the chancellor had the jurisdiction to make the temporary change of’ custody, and this error was cured by hearings held by the court on February 19 and February 26. Grant v. Corbitt, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 25.
On March 11, the chancellor entered an extensive order in which he found that it was in the best interest of the child (a ten year old girl) that she should remain in the temporary, custody of. the mother, pending a full hearing on the mother’s, petition. This order provided for specified visits with the’ father and that neither the petitioner nor the respondent should remove the child from the jurisdiction of the court.
Appellate courts must act upon the basis of a record without an opportunity to see and hear the witnesses; therefore, they áre understandably reluctant to change provisions for custody unless there is a clear showing of,abuse in the exercise of the chancellor’s judicial discretion. Martens v. State ex rel. Grossman, Fla.App. 1958, 100 So.2d 440; Foster v. Sharpe, Fla.App.1959, 114 So.2d 373. We have before us only a portion of .the testimony received at the hearing and are. unable to conclude that the' chancellor abused his discretion. See McEachin v. McEachin, Fla.App.1963, 154 So.2d 894, and Short v. Short, Fla.App.1964, 162 So.2d 538.
W'e have examined the other points presented by the appellant, including his contention that the petition for change of 'custody is insufficient, and find them to be 'without merit.
The interlocutory order appealed is affirmed.
This holding in no way indicates that the facts have been established upon which a final disposition of the mother’s petition may be made.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Beulah Grant v. Corbitt, 95 So. 2d 25 (Fla. 1957)
- McEACHIN v. Dalton H. McEACHIN, 154 So. 2d 894 (Fla. 1st DCA 1963)
- Foster v. Sharpe, 114 So. 2d 373 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Anne Grace Short v. Short, 162 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964)
- Gertrude Pelnik v. Pelnik, 100 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Martens v. State, 100 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)