Young v. Hector

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided June 25, 2003

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 2003-06-25

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently July 2007

5 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“We further note that the trial court would not allow the petitioner, who was neither disrespectful nor disruptive, to speak to his attorney. The court stated: `No, you may not speak to your attorney in this hearing. You may give your attorney a note. Is that clear?' This, we believe, is somewhat improper.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Young v. Hector

“the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in freezing assets in a purported trust account without either a basis in the pleadings or the evidence.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Young v. Hector

Relies on Young v. Young · City of Miami Beach v. Swedroe · Briganti v. Townhouses of Venetian Park Homeowners Ass'n

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 2003-06-25

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1Petitioner, Robert S. Young, seeks cer-tiorari review on a plethora of issues in this tortuously over-litigated case. By and large, we deny certiorari on all issues, save one. Because the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction in freezing assets in a purported trust account without either a basis in the pleadings or the evidence, the order freezing the trust account proceeds is quashed. See Young v. Young, 816 So.2d 799 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002); City of Miami Beach v. Swedroe, 788 So.2d 404 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Resil v. Resil, 755 So.2d 186 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000).

¶2We further note that the trial court would not allow the petitioner, who was neither disrespectful nor disruptive, to speak to his attorney. The court stated: “No, you may not speak to your attorney in this hearing. You may give your attorney a note. Is that clear?” This, we believe is somewhat improper.

¶3Certiorari granted, in part; order quashed.