From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bertuglia v. Roe

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jul 30, 2010
42 So. 3d 285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Opinion

No. 5D09-3615.

July 30, 2010.

Non Final Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County, Lisa T. Munyon, Judge.

Steven Bertuglia, Fairton, pro se.

No Appearance for Appellee.


We affirm the trial court's denial of Appellant's motion for civil contempt. A party may not be held in contempt for violation of an order which is not clear and definite enough to provide notice of what the party is required to do in order to comply with the court's decree. See Marcus v. Marcus, 902 So.2d 259 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005); Kranis v. Kranis, 313 So.2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Our affirmance is without prejudice to Appellant seeking to have the trial court set a specific visitation schedule.

AFFIRMED.

EVANDER, COHEN and JACOBUS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bertuglia v. Roe

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District
Jul 30, 2010
42 So. 3d 285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)
Case details for

Bertuglia v. Roe

Case Details

Full title:Steven BERTUGLIA, Appellant, v. Catherine Bertuglia ROE, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District

Date published: Jul 30, 2010

Citations

42 So. 3d 285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2010)

Citing Cases

Raton v. Wallace

Thus, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Former Husband's motion to hold…

Fernandes v. Fernandes

"For a person to be held in contempt of a court order, the language of the order must be clear and precise,…