MARIE SMITH GIBSON, APPELLANT,
v.
EDWARD SMITH, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Alimony Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court’s order stating “The arrearage in the amount of $1,680 is forgiven” is in error. The court is without authority to forgive or dissolve an indebtedness for alimony unpaid under the court’s prior and unmodified order, although “by virtue of the general power of a court to control its own processes the court may, for strong equitable reasons, growing out of radically changed circumstances, refuse to enforce its decree by issuance of execution or by contempt . . ..” Pottinger v. Pottinger, 133 Fla. 442, 446, 182 So. 762, 763 (1938). See also Van Loon v. Van Loon, 132 Fla. 535, 182 So. 205 (1938); Patterson v. Patterson, 348 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Although the order before us is without findings of circumstances which would justify denial of judgment and execution, the record is also unclear concerning an application for such relief. The order is therefore VACATED and the case REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this decision.
McCORD, C. J., and RAWLS and SMITH, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Peters v. State, 984 So. 2d 1227 (Fla. 2008)…ceedings retain other distinctions from criminal trials. A parole revocation hearing “is not a traditional adversary criminal trial, and eviden-tiary proof is not required to follow strict rules of evidence.” Jones v. Fla. Parole & Probation Comm’n, 348 So. 2d 681, 682 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977) (citing Singletary v. State, 290 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)). Moreover, the exclusionary rule does not [*1237] apply in parole revocation hearings. Pa. Bd. of Probation & Parole v. Scott, 524 U.S. 357, 359, 118 S.Ct. 201…
-
Merritt v. Crosby, 893 So. 2d 598 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…evidence to support the Commission’s finding of guilt consisted of the deputy’s recitation of Pauldon’s hearsay statement, but hearsay alone is not sufficient to sustain the revocation of parole. See Jones v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 348 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); see also § 120.57(l)(c), Fla. Stat. (2004). Implicitly recognizing this, the Commission argues that Pauldon’s statement falls within either the “excited utterance” or “spontaneous statement” exception to the hearsay rule, and th…
-
Vila v. State, 375 So. 2d 31 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…PER CURIAM. The appellant’s probation was revoked only upon “hearsay” evidence, with no other legal competent evidence before the trial court. This was error. Jones v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 348 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Jones v. State, 348 So. 2d 942 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Combs v. State, 351 So. 2d 1103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). The order revoking probation is reversed and set aside, with directions to reinstate the appellant to probation.…
Authorities Cited
- Van Loon v. Van Loon, 132 Fla. 535 (Fla. 1938)
- Pottinger v. Pottinger, 133 Fla. 442 (Fla. 1938)
- Patterson v. Patterson, 348 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)