HAZELE M. REYNOLDS, APPELLANT,
v.
FLOYD W. REYNOLDS AND REYNOLDS RANCH, INC., APPELLEES
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 court held that the plaintiff was denied due process due to inadequate notice of the contempt hearing.
Plaintiff was served with a rule to show cause on June 7th, ordering her to appear for a contempt hearing on June 8th. She did not appear, was held in…
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 Motion To Vacate cases and more on FLexlaw
This is . an interlocutory appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an order adjudging plaintiff guilty of contempt and modifying a final decree which was entered June 28, 1965.
The defendant filed a petition for a rule to show cause which was served upon the plaintiff in Palm Beach County, Florida, on the 7th day of June, 1965. She was ordered to appear with the minor children of the parties at a hearing in Bartow, Florida, on June 8, 1965, at 2:30 p. m. to show cause why she should not be held in contempt of court. She did not appear, and the court entered its order adjudging her guilty of contempt and modifying the final decree which had previously been entered. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a motion to vacate the order which was denied on June 28, 1965, and plaintiff appeals from that order.
Defendant failed to file an appellee’s brief and asked only that he be notified of the time for oral argument.
We believe that the plaintiff has in effect been denied due process of law since she received notice of the hearing on the 7th day of June, 1965, ordering her to appear on the 8th day of June, 1965, and that the ends of justice will best be served by affording the plaintiff a rehearing on the petition for contempt and giving her more adequate notice before such hearing is scheduled.
We hasten to add that the orders and decrees issued by the trial courts are to be obeyed and that a person failing to do so is subject to severe treatment. Our only concern here is the short notice afforded the plaintiff.
We therefore reverse the order denying the motion to vacate the order adjudging the plaintiff guilty of contempt and modifying the final decree and remand the cause for further hearing not inconsistent with this opinion.
SHANNON, Acting C. J., and LILES and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J.B. v. Fla. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs., 768 So. 2d 1060 (Fla. 2000)…, J., concurs. PARIENTE, J., dissents with an opinion. . See Harreld v. Harreld, 682 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996); Montgomery v. Cribb, 484 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986); Henzel v. Golstein, 349 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Reynolds v. Reynolds, 187 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966). . Specifically, section 39.462(l)(a) requires: The document containing the notice to respond or appear must contain, in type at least as large as the balance of the document, the following or substantially similar language: “FA…1 / 2
-
Crepage v. City OF Lauderhill, 774 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…1996)(four days notice of hearing not sufficient for an award of guardianship fees and costs); Henzel v. Golstein, 349 So. 2d 824 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)(one working day’s notice of hearing on motion to dismiss inadequate). See also Reynolds v. Reynolds, 187 So. 2d 372, 373 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)(one day notice of hearing on order to show cause constitutes due process violation). In arguing that the 24-hour notice was reasonable and not a denial of due process, the city relied upon J.B. v. Department of Children and…
-
Montgomery v. Cribb, 484 So. 2d 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)…at unless a motion is to be heard ex parte, a copy of the notice of the hearing on the motion must be served a reasonable length of time prior to the hearing. We find that two-day notice is not a reasonable length of time.. See Reynolds v. Reynolds, 187 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966); see also, Hernandez v. Ward, 437 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). Appellees argue they were privileged to proceed ex parte in this matter because, following this court’s denial of appellant’s motion to set aside the voluntary dism…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence