Case Name: Robert SCOTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-05-17
Citations: 431 So. 2d 314
Docket Number: Nos. 82-54, 82-256
Parties: Robert SCOTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Judges: Before SCHWARTZ, C.J. and BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 431
Pages: 314–314

Head Matter:
Robert SCOTT, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.
Nos. 82-54, 82-256.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 17, 1983.
Stanley Jay Bartel, Miami, for appellant.
Jim Smith, Atty. Gen. and Calvin L. Fox, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J. and BASKIN and FERGUSON, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The judgment holding Scott in indirect contempt is reversed because the basic requirements of fair notice and opportunity to be heard were not observed below. Deter v. Deter, 353 So.2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); In re S.L.T., 180 So.2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).
. The order amending the contempt judgment after the notice of appeal had been filed, which is itself under review in Case no. 82-256, falls both with the reversal of the primary judgment and because it was entered without jurisdiction. Ponzoli v. Hawkesworth, 390 So.2d 784 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Blum v. Blum, 382 So.2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).