LAWRENCE C. LEWIS, APPELLANT,
v.
GULF HEALTH, INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION D/B/A FLORIDA CO-OP INSURANCE SERVICES AND FURTHER D/B/A GHL FINANCIAL, 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.
Court reversed the portion of a contempt order that authorized incarceration for failure to pay attorney's fees and costs, holding that such fees cannot be enforced through incarceration under the Florida Constitution.
Attorney's fees and costs awarded in a contempt order cannot be enforced through incarceration; only coercive fines for purging contempt may result in incarceration.
[1] Attorney's fees and costs awarded in a contempt proceeding are compensatory sanctions that cannot be enforced through incarceration under the Florida Constitution.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered a contempt order against the appellant that struck his pleadings, awarded attorney's fees and costs, imposed coercive fines, a…
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 Coercive Fines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant challenges a contempt order entered against him by the trial court. The order, in addition to holding the appellant in contempt and striking his pleadings seeking affirmative relief, awarded attorney’s fees and costs, and ordered the payment of certain coercive fines. The last paragraph of the order provided that the appellant would be arrested and incarcerated upon failure to purge himself of contempt by paying the fines, attorney’s fees and costs within the time periods set forth in the order. We agree with the appellant’s contention that the portion of the order awarding attorney’s fees and costs should not be construed as a compensatory or coercive fine for contempt. The appellant cannot be incarcerated for failure to pay such an award. Fla. Const, art. I, § 11. See Tabas v. Hudson, 175 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA), appeal dismissed, 183 So. 2d 209 (Fla.1965), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 969, 86 S.Ct. 1273, 16 L.Ed.2d 308 (1966). We, therefore, reverse that portion of the trial court’s order which provides for incarceration of the appellant upon his failure to timely pay attorney’s fees and costs to the appellee and remand with instructions to modify the enforcement provision. We find no merit in the appellant’s remaining contentions and, accordingly, affirm the trial court in all other respects.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions.
RYDER, A.C.J., and DANAHY and SCHOONOVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Tabas v. Alice lola Hudson, 175 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)
- Blake v. State, 183 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1965)
- Williams v. State, 183 So. 2d 209 (Fla. 1965)
- Tabas v. Hudson, 383 U.S. 969 (U.S. 1966)
- Penn v. New York, 383 U.S. 969 (U.S. 1966)