BENJAMIN POLLOCK, APPELLANT,
v.
T & M INVESTMENTS, INC., 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.
In this contempt enforcement appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order that improperly terminated a $25 per day compensatory fine imposed on T & M Investments for violating a payment order to Pollock. The court reinstated the fine, awarded attorney's fees, and directed execution against T & M's unencumbered property to end a protracted dispute.
The court held that the trial court erred in terminating the fine without appellate authorization and that the fine should continue until the underlying payment obligation is satisfied. The court also held that the trial court abused its discretion in declining to award attorney's fees given T & M's extended history of non-compliance.
[1] A trial court cannot terminate a compensatory fine imposed by an appellate court without the appellate court's authorization.
[2] A compensatory fine predicated on non-compliance with a court order remains effective until the underlying order is satisfied or the fine is otherwise terminated by court…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the trial court was not authorized to depart from the terms of our affirmance of the fine absent our authorization and consent”
Establishes that a trial court cannot modify an affirmed contempt fine without appellate authorization
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceT & M Investments was ordered to pay $175 per month to Pollock pursuant to an earlier court judgment. T & M failed to comply with this payment order, …
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 Compensatory Fine cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The order entered after and pursuant to our opinion and mandate in Pollock v. T & M Investments, Inc., 420 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), pet. for rev. denied, 430 So. 2d 452 (Fla.1983), was erroneous insofar as it terminated as of March 12, 1979,1 the $25 per day compensatory fine, imposed by the trial court in 1978 and affirmed by this court in T & M Investments, Inc. v. Pollock, 374 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979) (per curiam), for its contemptuous failure to comply with the order for the payment of $175 per month to Pollock we had previously affirmed in Pollock v. Morton, 311 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). This was incorrect both because (a) the trial court was not authorized to depart from the terms of our affirmance of the fine absent our authorization and consent, Goodner v. Shapiro, 367 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), and eases cited; and (b) since the condition upon which the fine was predicated, that is, compliance with the order has never been satisfied, it was improper to permit the appellee to escape its effect by simply ignoring its terms without prior order of court. Shane v. Shane, 444 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Adams v. Adams, 423 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
We also find error in the order declining to award attorney’s fees for the efforts of Pollock’s lawyers in enforcing the contempt order. In view of the “long history of non-compliance by T & M” which we have already commented upon, 420 So. 2d at 100, and which has lengthened considerably since we did, this holding was a clear abuse of discretion. Ibis Construction Co. v. Sinclair, 406 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and cases cited.2
We therefore direct that, forthwith upon remand,3 additional judgments be entered against T & M for (a) the $25 per day compensatory fine from March 12, 1979 until entry or payment of the underlying judgment, plus interest; and (b) for the reasonable attorney’s fees required by this opinion. In an attempt to put this interminable litigation to an end, we also direct that, immediately thereafter, the property of T & M unencumbered by the lien or any interest of Morton — which we have ordered cancelled in Pollock v. Morton, 455 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) — be subject to execution to satisfy any judgment,4 held by Pollock against it. It is also ordered that the time for filing a motion for rehearing herein is shortened to five days from the date hereof.
. This was the date a fraudulent conveyance from T & M to Morton was set aside. See Morton v. Pollock, 386 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (per curiam); Pollock v. Morton, 455 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Pollock v.T&M Investments, Inc., 420 So. 2d at 100-101.
. There is no merit in the appellant’s remaining contentions.
. We so order because of what we have called in the companion case, Pollock v. Morton, 455 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984), an "intolerable" history of delay and obstructions in and to the vindication of Dr. Pollock's established rights in this cause.
.These include, but are not necessarily limited to, the principal judgment of December 6, 1982; the order and judgment of May 26, 1983 for 14,125.00, under review herein; the judgments to be entered in accordance with this opinion; and the order for $2,000 in appellate attorney’s fees which we have assessed in this proceeding. Ibis Construction Co. v. Sinclair, supra.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Joannou v. Corsini, 543 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)…o appellee’s counsel which, based upon the [*312] affidavits presented below, were to compensate appellee for his attorney’s fees expended in securing compliance with the valid order of the trial court, we affirm. Pollock v. T & M Investments, Inc., 455 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). That compliance with the order requiring answers to interrogatories has been rendered moot by subsequent events does not erase the efficacy of the attempts by appellee’s attorneys to seek compliance with the discovery orders whic…
-
Pollock v. Emil Morton, 455 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…nd of this cause, including numerous prior appearances in this court, is detailed in Pollock v. T & M Investments, Inc., 420 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), pet. for rev. denied, 430 So. 2d 452 (Fla.1983). See also, Pollock v. T & M Investments, Inc., 455 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984). . By separate order, we have granted Pollock's motion for appellate attorney's fees under Sec. 57.105, Fla.Stat. (1983) in the amount of $5,000. . As opposed to a claim against or interest in T & M. . Appellee's counsel’s admi…
-
Herce v. Maines, 317 So. 3d 1211 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021)…rsini, 543 So. 2d 308, 311-12 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989) (affirming "the award of sanctions . . . to compensate appellee for his attorney's fees expended in securing compliance with the valid order of the trial court" (citing Pollock v. T&M Invests., Inc., 455 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984))). Once the Former Husband complied, the Former Wife's insistence on contempt was moot, as Judge Lee found. See generally Baldwin v. Baldwin, 204 So. 3d 565, 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) ("An issue is moot when the controversy has be…
Authorities Cited
- Adams v. Adams, 423 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Pollock v. T & M Invs., Inc., 420 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Goodner v. Shapiro, 367 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Calixto v. State, 406 So. 2d 510 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Klein v. Gans, 311 So. 2d 206 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Pollock v. Emil Morton, 455 So. 2d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
- Shane v. Shane, 444 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)