WILLARD L. CARROLL, APPELLANT,
v.
AGATHA ANN CARROLL, 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 court held that the factual matters presented did not support the trial court's finding of contempt against the appellant-father.
The appellant-father challenged a contempt order for failing to notify the child's legal custodian, the maternal grandmother, before exercising summer…
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 Legal Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The “acrimonious” conduct of these parties mentioned in our prior opinion1 continues. By this appeal, appellant-father challenges the trial court’s order adjudging him in contempt2 for failure to give the legal custodian of the child, the maternal grandmother, proper notice prior to exercising his summer visitation rights.
Factual matters adduced during the hearing do not support the trial court’s finding that appellant violated the previous order of the trial court granting custody to the maternal grandmother.3 The order appealed is
REVERSED.
RAWLS, Acting C. J., and McCORD and SMITH, JJ., concur. . Carroll v. Carroll, 336 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).
. As punishment for his contempt, appellant was ordered to pay appellee’s attorney a fee of $150.00 and $7.50 costs.
. The trial court observed:
“It [order] doesn’t say a thing about notifying Mrs. Burkett [maternal grandmother] but that’s what I meant for it to say when I made it, because she is the one that has custody of the child ... I think this should be amended so that it is to Mrs. Burkett. I am going to find that he [appellant] has violated the order and that he is in contempt.”