DANIEL A. MILLAN, M.D., APPELLANT,
v.
LENORA WILLIAMS, 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.
Dr. Millan appealed a trial court order finding him in criminal contempt for filing a false affidavit in a medical malpractice action and imposing sanctions. The court reversed the contempt finding because the trial judge failed to make the essential finding that Millan willfully and intentionally lied, which is required for criminal contempt based on perjury.
The criminal contempt order must be reversed because the trial judge failed to make the essential finding that Millan willfully and intentionally lied, which is a necessary element of criminal contempt for perjury. The trial court's refusal to strike Millan's defenses was proper because without a finding of intentional or willful perjury, there is no basis for striking pleadings.
[1] A contempt order is criminal in nature when its purpose is to vindicate the authority of the court by punishing conduct that obstructs justice, rather than to coerce acti…
[2] A criminal contempt order must be reversed if the trial court fails to find that the alleged contemnor willfully and intentionally committed the act constituting 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“the trial judge expressly declined to find that the defendant had willfully and intentionally lied in the affidavit, (Tr. 5/4/94 at 3-4), an essential element of criminal contempt, whether direct or indirect, where the alleged contempt is, as here, perjury before the court.”
Establishes that willful and intentional lying is an essential element of criminal contempt for perjury, which the trial judge failed to find
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDr. Daniel Millan, a defendant in a pending medical malpractice action brought by Lenora Williams, filed an affidavit with the court. The trial court …
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 Direct Criminal Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by Daniel A. Millan, M.D., a defendant in a pending medical malpractice action below, from a final trial court order (1) finding him in contempt of court for filing a false affidavit with the court, and (2) imposing sanctions. This is also a cross appeal by the plaintiff Lenora Williams from the trial court’s refusal to strike the defendant’s defenses for filing the false affidavit. We reverse on the main appeal and affirm on the cross appeal.
Clearly, the contempt order under review must be treated as a criminal, rather than a civil, contempt because (a) the purpose of the contempt proceeding below was to vindicate the authority of the court by punishing conduct (i.e., perjury) tending to obstruct or interfere with the administration of justice, and not to coerce certain action or non-action by the defendant, and (b) the contempt order contains no purge provision. Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422, 424 (Fla. 1977).
We need not decide, however, whether the alleged contempt was indirect contempt, as urged by the defendant, and thus governed by the procedures established by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.840, or was direct criminal contempt, as urged by the plaintiff, and thus governed by the procedures established by Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.880. In any event, the trial judge expressly declined to find that the defendant had willfully and intentionally lied in the affidavit, (Tr. 5/4/94 at 3-4), an essential element of criminal contempt, whether direct or indirect, where the alleged contempt is, as here, perjury before the court. Florida Ventilated Awning Co. v. Dickson, 67 So. 2d 218 (Fla.1953); Brown v. State, 579 So. 2d 898, 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); International Medical Ctrs., Inc. v. Colavecchio, 563 So. 2d 784, 786 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); C.N. v. State, 433 So. 2d 661, 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
Accordingly, the criminal contempt order under review must be reversed and the defendant discharged therefrom.
Moreover, given the lack of any finding of intentional or willful perjury in this case there could be no basis for striking the defendant’s pleadings; the trial court’s refusal to do so was, therefore, entirely proper. See Momenah v. Ammache, 616 So. 2d 121, 123 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995); Kirby v. Adkins, 582 So .2d 1209, 1211 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Paris Int’l Records & Filmworks, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 539 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989). The plaintiff, however, is not precluded by our decision from seeking other remedies, if otherwise available, against the defendant for filing the false affidavit.
The final order of criminal contempt under review is reversed, and the defendant is discharged therefrom, but the trial court’s refusal to strike the defendant’s defenses is affirmed.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
COX v. Burke, 706 So. 2d 43 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…discretion in dismissing plaintiff’s complaint where he “committed serious misconduct by repeatedly lying under oath during a [*47] deposition.” See also Figgie Int'l, Inc. v. Alderman, 698 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); compare Millan v. Williams, 655 So. 2d 207, 208 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). In Kirby v. Adkins, 582 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991), this court reversed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs complaint in that case when the plaintiff perjured herself in court concerning her marital status. T…
Authorities Cited
- Rocco Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1977)
- Fla. Ventilated Awning Co., Inc. v. Dickson, 67 So. 2d 218 (Fla. 1953)
- Brown v. State, 579 So. 2d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Sheik Abdul Rahman Momenah v. Ammache, 616 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993)
- Paris Int'l Records & Filmworks, Inc. v. Rodriguez, 539 So. 2d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Int'l Med. Ctrs., Inc. v. Colavecchio, 563 So. 2d 784 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Kirby v. Adkins, 582 So. 2d 1209 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)
- C.N. v. State, 433 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)