GERALDINE NEAL, APPELLANT,
v.
HAYWARD NEAL, 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.
Geraldine Neal appealed a February 1972 order from Pinellas County Circuit Court that allowed her ex-husband Hayward Neal to purge contempt by paying $60 for child support arrears. The Florida appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding the trial court lacked jurisdiction because there were no proper litigants, issues, or case before it.
The court dismissed the appeal, holding that neither the trial court nor the appellate court had jurisdiction over the matter because there was no proper case, no litigants, and no issues before the court.
[1] An order entered without any litigants before the court, issues before the court, or a case before the court is void for lack of jurisdiction.
[2] A court cannot acquire jurisdiction of a party or subject matter without proper pleadings, service, notice, and venue.
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“There were no litigants before the Court; there were no issues before the Court; in fact, there was no case even before the Court.”
The core holding that the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the absence of a proper case
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceHayward Neal was held in contempt by Walton County Circuit Court in December 1971 for arrears in child support payments and sentenced to 60 days in ja…
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 Child Support Arrearages cases and more on FLexlaw
In this case appellant Geraldine Neal purports to take an appeal to this Court “to review the Order of the Circuit Court of Pinellas County, Florida, entered February 11th, 1972 . . .”. The “Order” of Feburary 11th referred to recited that the case came on before the Pinellas County Circuit Court “upon the oral motion of the defendant, Hayward Neal, for interpretation of the Order dated December 21, 1971, of . . . the Circuit Court of Walton County, . . . Florida.” It is further stated therein that upon due consideration “it is ordered that the defendant, Hayward Neal, is allowed to purge himself of his contempt by the payment of $60.00”, and “that upon the payment of said $60.00, the defendant, Hayward Neal, is to be released from the custody of the Pinellas County Jail”.
Apparently Neal had been adjudged in contempt of the Walton County Circuit Court. This supposition is further indicated by purported copy of order dated December 21, 1971, entered by Circuit Judge Beasley holding Neal in contempt of Court and sentencing him to serve 60 days in the Walton County jail but providing for his release from custody by payment of $60.00 for “arrears in child support payments”.
Neal’s brief says that the February 11, 1972 order of Pinellas Circuit Judge Beach aforesaid “was obtained in the first instance by Appellee only because the Pinel-las County Sheriff’s Department requested an interpretation of the Walton County Court Order by a Circuit Judge from Pi-nellas County.” Appellant in her brief, referring to said February 11th order, said it “apparently like Cinderella’s Godmother, just appeared one day in Pinellas County without benefit of Complaint, Petition, service, notice, jurisdiction or venue. The Order apparently was filed in the office of the Sheriff of Pinellas County, who honored the Order and released from custody the individual named therein, who was at *83the time incarcerated by Order of the Circuit Court of Walton County, Florida.”
All this is carrying our current relaxed mode of pleading and procedure just a bit too far. There were no litigants before the Court; there were no issues before the Court; in fact, there was no case even before the Court.
Neither the lower Court nor this Court ever had or acquired jurisdiction of any party or any subject matter.
The purported appeal is therefore
Dismissed.
HOBSON, Acting C. J., concurs.
McNULTY, J., concurs in conclusion only.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ferguson v. Ferguson, 504 So. 2d 541 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)…6 (Fla.1985); Harrison v. Griffin, 443 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Taylor v. Taylor, 325 So. 2d 63 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); Burrell Drilling Co. v. Meredith Corp., 306 So. 2d 139 (Fla. 4th DCA), cert. denied, 315 So. 2d 472 (Fla.1975); Neal v. Neal, 276 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973); Nethery v. Nethery, 212 So. 2d 10 (Fla. 1st DCA 1968). . The issue in case number BP-329 is whether the trial court erred in finding that recordation of a deed and giving the deed to decedent’s wife with instructions to deliver…