Bray v. Rimes, 89-03456
| Decision Date | 21 December 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-03456,89-03456 |
| Citation | 16 Fla. L. Weekly 26,574 So.2d 1114 |
| Parties | 16 Fla. L. Weekly 26 Nancy J. BRAY f/k/a Nancy J. Rimes, Appellant, v. Timothy Paul RIMES, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bruce E. Przepis, New Port Richey, for appellant.
No appearance, for appellee.
The appellant, Nancy J. Bray f/k/a Nancy J. Rimes, challenges an order holding her in contempt of court and sentencing her to ten days imprisonment. We reverse.
On October 17, 1983, a final judgment was entered dissolving the marriage of the parties, Nancy J. Bray and Timothy Paul Rimes. The final judgment of dissolution ordered shared parental responsibility of the parties' minor child, named the mother the primary residential parent, and established the father's visitation rights.
On November 14, 1988, the father filed a motion to modify his visitation. Shortly thereafter, the mother on December 20, 1988, filed a motion to modify child support, a motion for contempt, a motion for clarification/amendment of final judgment, and on January 18, 1989, filed a motion for an order terminating the father's visitation rights.
On February 7, March 3, and May 12, 1989, the father filed separate motions seeking an order to show cause and supporting affidavits alleging that the mother on several occasions had refused to allow him visitation with the minor child. The trial court on May 12 issued an order to show cause and set a hearing for May 30, 1989. At the hearing, a transcript of which is not included in the record, the mother was found in contempt of court. The sentencing was withheld until the additional pending matters before the court could be heard.
A final hearing on whether the father's visitation rights should be terminated was held on July 3 and August 3, 1989. At the July 3 final hearing, the trial court was reminded by the father's counsel that it had put off sentencing until then on the mother's criminal contempt to which she had pled guilty at the arraignment hearing and presented mitigating evidence. The mother's counsel at no time during the final hearing objected to this characterization of the contempt proceedings. Rather, on August 3, the mother waived her appearance at the sentencing on the contempt finding.
The trial court entered its order on all pending motions on August 24, 1989. The order granted the father's motion for contempt and sentenced the mother to ten days imprisonment, the sentence being suspended as long as she complied with the order. The order also modified the father's visitation rights requiring that visitation be supervised and on alternating Saturdays. The trial court retained jurisdiction of the cause for six months to review the modified visitation schedule.
On September 2, 1989, the father went to the mother's home to exercise his right of visitation pursuant to the order, only to be informed that the mother and child had moved to another state. On September 13, 1989, the father filed a motion to show cause. Before the order to show cause was issued, the trial court heard testimony on the father's motion. The trial court subsequently on November 15, 1989, entered an order "unsuspending" the mother's sentence previously imposed on August 24 for contempt of court...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mayo v. Mayo ex rel. M.O.M.
...of that rule is fundamental error." Sramek v. State, 946 So.2d 1235, 1236 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007) (citing cases); see also Bray v. Rimes, 574 So.2d 1114, 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) ("Greater procedural due process safeguards are accorded when proceedings are for indirect criminal contempt." (citing......
-
Mix v. State, 2D00-5112.
...being initiated in conformity with rule 3.840. See Wisniewski v. Wisniewski, 657 So.2d 944, 945 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Bray v. Rimes, 574 So.2d 1114, 1116 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). In light of our reversal due to the insufficiency of the order to show cause, the other issues raised by Mix are Revers......
-
Hagerman v. Hagerman, 2D99-380.
...2d DCA 1998); Giles v. Renew, 639 So.2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Reins v. Johnson, 604 So.2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Bray v. Rimes, 574 So.2d 1114 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Hunt v. State, 659 So.2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Starchk v. Wittenberg, 411 So.2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Deter v. Deter, ......
- Amoco Oil Co. v. Gomez, No. 03-11316.