Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 60-287
| Decision Date | 19 September 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 60-287,60-287 |
| Citation | 123 So.2d 57 |
| Parties | Burton GINSBERG, Appellant, v. Charlotte GINSBERG, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ungerleider & Winton, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Broad & Cassel, Miami Beach, and L. J. Cushman, Miami for appellee.
This is an interlocutory appeal from a post decretal order in a divorce action, wherein the chancellor adjudicated certain arrearages and costs to be owed by the appellant to the appellee, entered judgment for said sums, directed execution thereon and in addition, adjudicated the appellant to be in contempt and sentenced him to a period of ninety days.
The proceedings which gave rise to this appeal developed as a result of a petition for the rule to show cause filed by the appellee wife alleging that the appellant was delinquent in the payment of certain weekly alimony and support monies provided for in the final decree of divorce. The petition alleged that instead of the sum of $250 per week required by the final decree, the appellant had paid only the sum of $100 per week, and that as a result of such delinquency, there was an arrearage due the appellee of $1,900, as well as $673.30 costs adjudicated by the decree, all of which appellant had willfully refused to pay. The petition further charged that the appellant had fled the jurisdiction of the court, was willfully remaining outside the jurisdiction and paying only such sums due under the decree as he was willing to pay. A rule to show cause was issued upon said petition directed to the appellant to appear on a day certain before the court and show cause, if any he had, why he should not pay the sums required by the final decree or why he should not be adjudged in contempt. The rule to show cause directed that a copy be served upon the appellant's counsel of record in the cause. It should be observed at this point that the final decree of divorce, the basis upon which the alleged amounts set up in the petition for rule to show cause were claimed, was under appeal to this court by the appellant at the time the rule to show cause was issued, but enforcement of the decree had not been stayed or superseded.
The rule to show cause was apparently served on appellant's counsel of record, and on the day set for the hearing, appellant's counsel appeared before the chancellor and indicated that he did not know the whereabouts of the appellant. Counsel for the appellee informed the court that the appellant was then in the State of Texas and from aught that appears in this record, that fact is not questioned.
The appellant at the time of the hearing on the rule to show cause appeared specially and moved to dismiss the rule and to quash the purported service of the rule upon appellant's counsel. The court struck these pleadings on behalf of the appellant and entered the order now under appeal.
The appellant contends that the court lacked jurisdiction over him sufficient to warrant an adjudication of contempt or for any other purposes growing out of the issuance of the rule to show cause. This contention seems to be based upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Brown, XX-65
...remedies as the trial court may determine to be appropriate or necessary to that end. Id. at 642-43. See also Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 123 So.2d 57 (Fla.3d DCA 1960), and Williams v. Williams, 277 So.2d 542 (Fla.2d DCA 1973). I would accordingly conclude that the trial court abused its discret......
-
Grotnes v. Grotnes
...not make it an ordinary debt but a continuing obligation.' (47 So.2d 294) It also appears that the Third District in Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 123 So.2d 57 (Fla.3d DCA 1960) has recognized the authority of the trial court to enter a money judgment and also adjudicate a delinquent husband guilty......
-
Coggan v. Coggan
...at the time the chancellor entered his second order, enforcement of that award had not been stayed nor superseded. Cf. Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, 123 So.2d 57 (D.C.A.Fla.1960). In view of the foregoing, the chancellor's decree in Case Number 5043 is Plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss the appeal......
-
Kranis v. Kranis, 74--1239
...by notice to the attorney who was not of record in the case, was not challenged (Cf. Ginsberg v. Ginsberg, Fla.App.1969, 122 So.2d 30 and 123 So.2d 57). Rosalind filed an affidavit in opposition to Robert's motion, but was not present at the hearing. The court entered an order on May 28, 19......