AMERICAN PIONEER CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH M. HENRION AND LOIS L. HENRION, HIS WIFE, AND A.W. NORDMAN AND J.M. HENRION, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, ROGER W. SHOOK, MARK J. GREENWAY, JIM GRAHAM, NEW ERA REALTY IV, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, AND JIM GRAHAM, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION, APPELLEES
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.
American Pioneer Casualty Insurance Company appeals a contempt finding and $25,000 fine imposed by the trial court for allegedly violating a mandatory settlement conference attendance order. The appellate court reverses, holding that the order was ambiguous and that the insurance company lacked the requisite intent to disobey since its authorized attorney attended the conference.
The court reversed the contempt finding, holding that (1) the settlement conference order was ambiguous and could reasonably be interpreted to permit appearance of either counsel and clients or representatives with settlement authority, making it unclear whether personal appearance was required; and (2) the company lacked the requisite intent to disobey the court's order since its attorney reasonably believed his attendance constituted compliance.
[1] A party cannot be held in contempt for violating a court order that is not clear and definite, such that the party is aware of its command.
[2] Willful disregard of a court order is a necessary element for a finding of contempt.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“[o]ne may not be held in contempt of court for violation of an order or a provision of a judgment which is not clear and definite so as to make the party aware of its command and direction”
Establishes the requirement that contempt orders must be based on unambiguous directives so the party knows what conduct is required
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court issued an order requiring attendance at a settlement conference, stating that '[t]he appearance of counsel and clients, or representat…
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 Ambiguous Court Order cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Chief Judge.
Appellant, third party defendant below, appeals the lower court’s order finding it in contempt of court and assessing a fine of $25,000. We reverse.
The trial court found that appellant had violated a court order requiring attendance at a settlement conference. The order stated, inter alia, that “[t]he appearance of counsel and clients, or representatives of each party with authority to enter into a full and complete compromise and settlement, is mandatory.”
The record indicates that appellant’s attorney, who had full authority to settle on behalf of appellant, did attend' the conference. The trial court, however, held that the order meant that the parties and their attorneys were required to appear, and found that appellant’s failure to appear had constituted willful disregard of the court’s order. In Lawrence v. Lawrence, 384 So. 2d 279, 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), this court stated that “[o]ne may not be held in contempt of court for violation of an order or a provision of a judgment which is not clear and definite so as to make the party aware of its command and direction.” Here, we agree with appellant that the order allegedly violated was ambiguous, and could reasonably be interpreted to mean that appearance of either (1) counsel and clients or (2) representatives of each party with authority to settle, was satisfactory.
In addition, intent to disobey a court order is one of the necessary elements of contempt. Florida Ventilated Awning Company v. Dickson, 67 So. 2d 218 (Fla.1953); Tubero v. Ellis, 472 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). Since appellant’s attorney testified that he had full authority to settle and thought that his presence at the conference constituted compliance with the court’s order, it is clear that the necessary element of intent to disobey was absent in this case.
Based on the foregoing we conclude that the trial court erred in finding appellant in contempt. In view of this conclusion it is unnecessary to address appellant’s additional contentions that the fine imposed was excessive and that the underlying order requiring a settlement conference was void.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
DELL and WALDEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. State, 954 So. 2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)…of contempt is based upon a violation of a court order, that order must be one which clearly and definitely makes the person aware of its command. Barnes v. State, 588 So. 2d 1076, 1077 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); American Pioneer Cas. Ins. Co. v. Henrion, 523 So. 2d 776 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Lawrence v. Lawrence, 384 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Kranis v. Kranis, 313 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Moreover, there must be evidence of the individual’s intent to disobey the court’s order, or “that he or she was guil…
Authorities Cited
- Lawrence v. Lawrence, 384 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Fla. Ventilated Awning Co., Inc. v. Dickson, 67 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1953)
- Moshe Tubero v. Ellis, 472 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)