EMILIE S. PETRUCCI, NOW KNOWN AS EMILIE PETRUCCI D'ANGELO, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANK R. PETRUCCI, 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.
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed portions of a post-divorce order that amended support payments, finding the lower court lacked a proper pleading before it to adjudicate those changes after discharging a rule to show cause.
No, the trial court did not have a proper pleading before it to adjudicate the amendments to the support payments after discharging the rule to show cause.
“Since the court had discharged the rule to show cause, there was no pleading before it upon which to adjudicate the matters set forth in paragraphs numbered 2, 3 and 4 of the order.”
This quote explains the core reasoning for reversing the trial court's decision.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a divorce decree, the former wife filed a petition for a rule to show cause against the former husband. The trial court discharged the rule …
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 Rule To Show Cause cases and more on FLexlaw
This interlocutory appeal is by the former wife and is from a post divorce decree order which amended the final decree of divorce. The order appealed is entitled “order on rule to show cause”. In the introductory paragraph of the order, the court set out that the cause came on before him upon a petition for rule to show cause filed by the appellant, the rule to show cause thereon, and the response of the appellee to the petition for rule to show cause. The court then found that the ap-pellee had made, prior to the hearing, all payments required by the rule to show cause. The court found that the appellee was not in contempt of court and discharged the rule. Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of the order made changes in the payment of support as provided in the final decree and as amended in a previous order.
Since the court had discharged the rule to show cause, there was no pleading before it upon which to adjudicate the matters set forth in paragraphs numbered 2, 3 and 4 of the order. See Cortina v. Cortina, Fla.1957, 98 So.2d 334; Goff v. Goff, Fla.App.1963, 151 So.2d 295; Keathley v. Elb, Fla.App.1961, 133 So.2d 471. Upon authority of the cases cited, paragraphs numbered 2, 3 and 4 of the judgment portion of the order of November 14, 1966 are reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Emilie S. Petrucci v. Petrucci, 252 So. 2d 867 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…uch as remaining current in his payments. The order was entered after hearing on the ex-wife’s motion for entry of judgment on child support ar-rearages. We note that the parties had appeared before this court in Petrucci v. Petrucci, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 516. A settlement agreement was incorporated into the final divorce decree and it dealt with child support and possible college expenses. Certain arrearages had previously been reduced to judgment. In Florida, the unpaid child support constitutes a ve…
-
Longo v. Longo, 245 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)…eneral statement, arising in other types of cases and carried from there to some Florida cases involving support of children. Before this court Longo cites only Scheer v. Scheer, Fla.App. 1961, 132 So. 2d 456, and Petrucci v. Petrucci, Fla.App.1967, 199 So. 2d 516. The appellee filed no brief here, so the court has undertaken to unravel the legal problems involved. “In any action for divorce or alimony, the court has power at any stage of the action to make such orders about the care, custody and maintenance…1 / 2
Authorities Cited
- Cortina v. Cortina, 98 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 1957)
- Keathley v. ELB, 133 So. 2d 471 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Goff v. Goff, 151 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)