ROSAIRE R. BADGER, APPELLANT,
v.
SHERI-LYN BADGER, APPELLEE
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 husband appeals the trial court's denial of his motion for relief from a contempt order under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Rule 1.540(b) applies only to final judgments and the contempt order was non-final and therefore not subject to relief under that rule.
Rule 1.540(b) does not extend to interlocutory or non-final orders and therefore was not available to the husband to challenge the contempt order. The trial court properly denied the motion for relief.
[1] A motion for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) is only available to challenge final judgments, decrees, or orders, not interlocutory one…
[2] An order holding a party in contempt for violating a dissolution of marriage judgment is typically a non-final order.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the order of May 19, 1989, holding the husband in contempt was a non-final order”
Establishes the critical distinction that Rule 1.540(b) relief is unavailable for non-final orders
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn January 1989, the trial court dissolved the parties' marriage and awarded the wife exclusive possession of the marital home. In May 1989, the wife …
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 For Relief From Order cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant husband seeks review of an order of the trial court which denied his Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 motion for relief from a previous order holding him in contempt.
In January, 1989, the trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, wherein, among other things, the court awarded exclusive possession of the marital home to the wife. The following May, the wife filed a “Motion for Contempt and for Money Judgment,” wherein she alleged the husband had broken into the marital home and taken various items of personal property. In due course, after an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an order, dated May 19, 1989, finding the husband in contempt and giving him approximately thirty days to purge himself by returning the property. The order further provided:
If the Former Husband fails to purge the contempt, the Former Wife shall file a Motion for Commitment and Affidavit of Noncompliance and the matter will be set for a commitment hearing with notice to the Former Husband by regular U.S. Mail at the address provided to the Court by the Former Husband at the time of the contempt hearing.
On June 1, 1989, the husband filed an “Emergency Motion For Relief From Order,” “pursuant to Rule 1.540(b)(3) and (4) Florida Rules of Civil Procedure,” alleging various factual matters that he contended warranted vacation of the adjudication of contempt. On June 12,1989, the trial court denied that motion and the husband perfected this appeal from that order. We commence by pointing out that the order of May 19, 1989, holding the husband in contempt was a non-final order. Pradas v. Pradas, 561 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Continental Casualty Company v. Morgan, 445 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Langbert v. Langbert, 409 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Rand v. Rand, 491 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). That being the case, Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) was not available to the husband, since that rule may be directed only to final judgments. The committee note following said rule provides that subsection (b) provides for motion practice to relieve a party upon such terms as are just from a final judgment, decree or order, or proceeding on five specified grounds. It further states, “Moreover, as in the Federal Rule, Rule 1.540(b) does not extend to interlocutory judgments.”
Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying the husband’s emergency motion for relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b) is affirmed.
POLEN and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Langbert v. Langbert, 409 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- State v. Riddell, 445 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Cont'l Cas. Co. v. Morgan, 445 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Pradas v. Pradas, 561 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Rand v. Rand, 491 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)