AMERIVEND CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
WEST DADE LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; WEST DADE, LTD., II, A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; SOUTH FLORIDA I, LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; LITTLE HAVANA LTD., A FLORIDA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AND ROLANDO BARRERO, 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.
Amerivend Corporation appeals a $2,000 contempt sanction imposed by the trial court for allegedly violating an order regarding collection and counting of money from coin-operated laundry machines. The appellate court granted certiorari and quashed the contempt adjudication, finding that the original court order was unambiguous and had been complied with, and therefore no violation occurred.
The court held that Amerivend did not violate the January 29, 1993 order because the order, by its plain terms, required only a one-time collection and counting on February 3, 1993, which Amerivend performed. A party cannot be held in contempt for violating an order that is not clear and definite. The contempt adjudication and sanctions were quashed.
[1] A party cannot be held in contempt for violating an order that is not clear and definite, failing to apprise the party of its specific commands.
[2] Courts must be explicit and precise in their orders to ensure obedience and should only strictly exact compliance when such clarity exists.
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“[A] party should not be held to be in contempt for violation of an order, or provision of a judgment, which is not clear and definite, so as to make the party aware of its command and direction, as applied to a given circumstance upon which such party is called upon to act, or refuse to act.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that contempt requires clear and definite court orders
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 on January 29, 1993, establishing a procedure for collection and counting of money from coin-operated laundry machines…
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 Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, Judge.
Amerivend Corp. appeals an order imposing a sanction of $2,000 for contempt. We treat the appeal as a petition for writ of certiorari and grant the writ.*
Amerivend was found in contempt for violating a trial court order dated January 29, 1993, which established a procedure for the collection and counting of money in coin operated laundry machines on the appellee landlords’ premises. We agree with Ameri-vend that the order in question by its terms provided for a one-time collection and counting of money on February 3, 1993. The February 3rd collection and counting indisputably occurred as specified by the order. Subsequently, the trial court ruled that the landlords were entitled to possession of the premises. Amerivend initially appealed that order, but ultimately decided to comply. Amerivend removed the machines from the premises. The landlords then complained that there should have been another collection and counting prior to removal of the machines. Instead, Amerivend removed the machines to its warehouse while leaving the coin boxes intact.
This court has said:
[A] party should not be held to be in contempt for violation of an order, or provision of a judgment, which is not clear and definite, so as to make the party aware of its command and direction, as applied to a given circumstance upon which such party is called upon to act, or refuse to act.
Thus in Hettinger v. McMahon, Fla.App. 1964, 164 So. 2d 553, 555, the court said:
“The real question raised in this controversy is whether or not the appellants were sufficiently charged with the knowledge of what they were required to do in order to comply with the decree of the court. Without doubt obedience of a court order must be secured, and to secure such obedience is the usual function of a proceeding for contempt. However, courts should be explicit and precise in their commands and should only then be strict in exacting compliance.
“On the other hand, if a court order directed to litigants is too general and appears too burdensome and uncertain in its scope the aggrieved parties should petition the court for modification, clarification or construction of the order, and if they fail to do so they act at their own peril. However, we are satisfied that this rule must be applied with great caution in contempt matters where severe penalties can be pronounced.”
Kranis v. Kranis, 313 So. 2d 135, 139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).
As we are unable to see that there was any violation of the January 29,1993 court order, we quash the adjudication of contempt and the imposition of sanctions pursuant thereto.
Certiorari granted.
*
The trial court’s order required payment of the sanction within seven working days, failing which Amerivend's pleadings would be stricken and a default would be entered against Ameri-vend on its contract claims against the appellee landlords.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bruce v. State, 656 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…imself, he cannot purge himself of contempt by doing the work since he is in jail. It is error to find a person in contempt for violating an order which is not clear and precise as to what is required. See e.g., Amerivend Corp. v. West Dade, Ltd., 627 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993); Paul v. Johnson, 604 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Furthermore, a civil contempt order must include a finding that the alleged contemnor has the ability to purge him or herself. See e.g., Washburn v. Washburn, 647 So. 2d 1044…
-
Douglas v. Zelman, 666 So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)…the appropriate due process protections, which may include court-appointed counsel. In such a proceeding, the movant must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant willfully violated the court order. In Amerivend Corp. v. West Dade Ltd., 627 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993), the Third District reviewed its position on the requirements and circumstances for holding a person in contempt by quoting from Kranis v. Kranis, 313 So. 2d 135, 139 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975) as follows: This court has said: [A] party…
Authorities Cited
- Rosalind Kranis v. Kranis, 313 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- Frank Hettinger et ux. v. McMAHON, 164 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)