MARY E. FOREMAN,
v.
THOMAS JAMES,
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.
The appellate court quashed two trial court orders: one finding the petitioner in civil contempt and another awarding attorney's fees. The contempt order was vacated because the underlying order it was based on had been reversed on appeal. The attorney's fees award was also quashed as it was substantially related to the contempt order.
The appellate court held that both the contempt order and the attorney's fees award were invalid. The contempt order was unenforceable because the underlying order it was based upon had been reversed. The attorney's fees award was quashed because it was substantially related to the now-unenforceable contempt order.
[1] An order of indirect civil contempt is unenforceable when the underlying order it sought to enforce has been reversed.
[2] A final judgment awarding attorney's fees and costs will be quashed if it substantially relates to a contempt order that has been vacated.
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“We quash both orders.”
Establishes the court's decision on both challenged orders.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePetitioner Mary E. Foreman sought review of a trial court order finding her in indirect civil contempt and ordering incarceration, as well as a final …
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 Need And Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Petitioner Mary E. Foreman has filed a petition seeking certiorari review of two trial court orders: an order finding Foreman in indirect civil contempt of court and ordering Foreman’s incarceration with a purge amount of $40,000; and a final judgment against Foreman and in favor of Respondent Thomas James’ attorneys, in the amount of $50,000 in attorney’s fees and costs.
We quash both orders. We quash the order of indirect civil contempt because this court, in a related appeal (3D19-1802), reversed the underlying order; it was Foreman’s alleged refusal to comply with that underlying order that resulted in the trial court’s indirect contempt order. As a result of the vacatur of that underlying order, this contempt order is no longer enforceable. See Foreman v. James, 45 Fla. L. Weekly D1095 (Fla. 3d DCA May 6, 2020). We also quash the final judgment awarding attorney’s fees and costs1 as those fees and costs directly relate, in substantial part, to the contempt order which we have quashed.
Petition granted. Order and final judgment quashed. The cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
62 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992); Gilliland v. Gilliland, 266 So. 3d 866, 869 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019; Ghay v. Ghay, 954 So. 2d 1186 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1997)
- Perrin v. Perrin, 795 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Perez v. Perez, 100 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)
- Ortiz v. Ortiz, 227 So. 3d 730 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)
- Gilliland v. Gilliland, 266 So. 3d 866 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)