PETITION OF CAMPBELL
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.
A restored ward petitioned for settlement of his property from his guardian. After the Circuit Court ordered the guardian to account and later held her in contempt for non-compliance, another Circuit Judge vacated the contempt order. The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the vacation, holding that both the Circuit Court and County Judge's Court had jurisdiction over guardianship accountings, and that refusal to adjudge contempt was not an abuse of discretion.
The order vacating the contempt was properly affirmed. Both the Circuit Court (which entered the restoration order) and the County Judge's Court (which appointed the guardian) had jurisdiction over the guardian's accounting. It was not an abuse of discretion to vacate the contempt order, and the fact that a different Circuit Judge vacated it was not consequential.
“both the Circuit Court, which entered the Order restoring sanity, and the County Judge's Court, where the guardian had been appointed, had jurisdiction over the accounting between the guardian and the ward”
Establishes concurrent jurisdiction of two courts over guardianship accountings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniel Douglas Campbell was restored to sanity and personal liberty pursuant to Florida statute. He obtained a Circuit Court order requiring his guard…
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 Certiorari cases and more on FLexlaw
DREW, Justice.
After he had been restored to judicial sanity and his personal liberty, pursuant to Section 62.35(1, 2) Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A., Daniel Douglas Campbell applied to the Circuit Court of Dade County for and received an Order requiring his guardian to make full settlement with him of his property in her hands, custody and control.
The guardian had been appointed by the County Judge of Dade County in 1935 and had made her accountings and reported on her administration of the affairs of her ward to him periodically since said time. The record reveals that on the entry of the Order requiring the settlement, the guardian made an accounting in the County Judge’s Court but did not turn over the ward’s property to him. Upon this fact being made known to the Circuit 'Judge, he entered an Order committing the guardian to jail for contempt until she should obey the Court’s previous Order. Shortly thereafter, on application to another Circuit Judge of the same Circuit the Contempt Order was set aside and vacated. It is from this latter Order that this appeal is prosecuted by the ward.
The appellant has misconceived his remedy and has prosecuted appeal instead of certiorari. We shall consider the appeal as certiorari under the provisions of Section 59.45 Florida Statutes 1953, F.S.A. In the case of Cregier v. State, 158 Fla. 514, 29 So. 2d 308, we held, in a similar case, that both the Circuit Court, which entered the Order restoring sanity,- and the County Judge’s Court, where the guardian had been appointed, had jurisdiction over the accounting between the guardian and the ward involved in that appeal. ' We further held that the Circuit Court there exercised sound judicial discretion in refusing to adjudge the guardian in contempt for failure to account, thus leaving the parties to the forum of the County Judge’s Court.
It therefore appearing that it would have been no abuse of discretion to have refused to enter the Contempt Order in the first instance, it is not an abuse of discretion to vacate it once it was entered. The fact that the Order was vacated by a Circuit Judge other than the one who entered it is of no consequence. See State ex rel. Brooks v. Freeland, 103 Fla. 663, 138 So. 27.
The Order appealed from is affirmed without prejudice, however, to the ward to take such further action before either the Circuit Court or in the County Judge’s Court of Dade County, as he may be advised.
Affirmed.
ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS and HOBSON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Beckwith, 624 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)…pliance justifies modification. Elimination of that authority as is suggested by the appellant would adversely affect the support enforcement system. Florida courts have recognized that a civil contempt order is interlocutory. Petition of Campbell, 72 So. 2d 59 (Fla.1954). The Fourth District has ruled specifically that an order of civil contempt is reviewable as a non-final order under rule 9.130(a)(3)(C), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Continental Cas. Co. v. Morgan, 445 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA19…
-
Art Lewis v. Lewis, 78 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 1955)…y, 155 Fla. 589, 21 So. 2d 41. Whether the contempt is civil or criminal is not material. Certiorari will not answer the purpose if there is any other adequate remedy, Kilgore v. Bird, 149 Fla. 570, 6 So. 2d 541. See also Petition of Campbell, Fla., 72 So. 2d 59. If the contemnor be imprisoned, review by habeas corpus may be secured, the sole inquiry being the legality of the imprisonment, but in such case the remedy will not be employed as substitute for an appeal. Sneed v. Mayo, Fla., 66 So. 2d 865; Coope…
Authorities Cited
- State v. Freeland, 103 Fla. 663 (Fla. 1931)
- Evalyn A. Cregier v. State, 158 Fla. 514 (Fla. 1947)