Case Name: Mercedes DUVALLON, Appellant, v. Rolando DUVALLON, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1982-02-16
Citations: 409 So. 2d 1162
Docket Number: Nos. 80-2240, 80-2241
Parties: Mercedes DUVALLON, Appellant, v. Rolando DUVALLON, Appellee.
Judges: Before HENDRY, BASKIN and JOR-GENSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 409
Pages: 1162–1163

Head Matter:
Mercedes DUVALLON, Appellant, v. Rolando DUVALLON, Appellee.
Nos. 80-2240, 80-2241.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Feb. 16, 1982.
Mercedes Duvallon, in pro. per.
James C. Burke, Miami, for appellee.
Before HENDRY, BASKIN and JOR-GENSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, respondent below, appeals an order of the trial court of Dade County denying her motion to vacate an order of injunction. Appellant also appeals an order of the court adjudicating her guilty of willful and intentional contempt and sentencing her to serve a term of thirty days in jail. The appeals have been consolidated for appellate purposes.
Appellant urges reversal on the following grounds. First, the trial court erred in denying her motion to vacate the orders appealed. Second, the court erred in adjudicating her guilty of willful and intentional contempt when the rules of criminal procedure had not been complied with by the petition and the petitioner. Finally, appellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to support the orders appealed.
Wide discretion rests in the trial court in granting, denying, or modifying injunctions. An appellate court will not interfere with the exercise of this discretion unless some abuse thereof is clearly made to appear, or unless the trial court's ruling is clearly improper. A presumption exists as to the correctness of the ruling of the trial court, and the burden is on the appellant to make error appear.
We have carefully considered appellant's points on appeal in the light of the record, briefs and arguments of appellant (in person) and counsel for appellee, and we have concluded that no reversible error has been demonstrated. Therefore the orders appealed are affirmed.
Affirmed.