STATE OF FLORIDA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLANT,
v.
STEVE MAXWELL, 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.
The Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services appealed a contempt order for failing to transfer an incompetent defendant from county jail to a state facility within 15 days as required by statute. The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the contempt finding, holding that HRS presented unrebutted evidence of inability to comply due to lack of bed space from inadequate funding, and the trial court failed to make required express findings regarding ability and willfulness to comply.
The court reversed the contempt order because HRS presented unrebutted evidence of inability to comply due to inadequate funding and lack of bed space, and the trial court failed to make express findings that HRS had the ability to comply with the court's directives and that HRS' failure to comply was willful.
[1] A party may only be held in contempt upon a determination that its failure to comply with a court order was willful.
[2] A trial court must make an express finding of ability to comply before imposing sanctions for 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“HRS' evidence that it could not comply with the order because no bed space was available due to inadequate funding was unrebutted.”
Establishes that unrebutted evidence of inability to comply due to lack of resources defeats contempt liability
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAn incompetent defendant was ordered by the circuit court to be transferred from county jail to a state-licensed facility within 15 days per Florida s…
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 Ability To Comply With Court Order cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court holding the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS) in contempt for failing to move an incompetent defendant from the county jail to a state licensed facility within a 15 day period. See § 916.107(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1993) (mandating that mentally ill defendants, after they have been found by the court to meet the criteria for involuntary commitment, be transferred from jail to a secure facility operated by HRS within 15 days).
At the contempt hearing, the HRS representative informed the court that the defendant had not been transferred out of the county jail because of an unavailability of bed space due to inadequate funding from the legislature. The HRS representative informed the trial court that the defendant was scheduled to be transported within 3 days of the hearing.
The trial court held HRS in contempt, directed HRS to place the defendant in a facility, and ordered HRS to reimburse Broward County at the rate set for inmate housing for a period of 28 days.
We reverse the order of contempt. HRS’ evidence that it could not comply with the order because no bed space was available due to inadequate funding was unrebutted. See Florida Dep’t of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bills, 661 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995).
Further, the order is technically deficient because the trial court failed to make an express finding that HRS had the ability to comply with the court’s directives. See Florida Coast Bank of Pompano Beach v. Mayes, 433 So. 2d 1033, 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), rev. dismissed, 453 So. 2d 43 (Fla.1984) (trial court must make an express finding of ability to comply before imposing sanctions).
In addition, the trial court failed to find that HRS’ refusal to comply with the order was willful. See Strauser v. Strauser, 303 So. 2d 663, 664 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974) (party may only be held in contempt upon a determination that its failure to comply with court order was willful); see also Robbins v. Robbins, 429 So. 2d 424, 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (orders holding a party in contempt must show on their faces the requisite for their validity and the record must support those elements).
Accordingly, the order of contempt is REVERSED.
DELL and STONE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
LaShawn P. Harris v. Feaster Bernard Hampton, 70 So. 3d 747 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011)…ted). “[T]rial courts should make an express finding of ability to comply before imposing sanctions.” Fla. Coast Bank of Pompano Beach v. Mayes, 433 So. 2d 1033,1036 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); see State, Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Maxwell, 667 So. 2d 980, 980-81 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (reversing an order of contempt because the trial court failed to make an express finding that HRS had the ability to comply with the court’s directives). In the instant case, the trial court failed to make an affirmativ…
-
Dep't OF Child. & Families v. R.H., 819 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…inding that it is within the power of the defendant to obey the order, and such finding must be made to appear on the face of the order of commitment, else it is void.”) (citation omitted); State, Dep’t. of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Maxwell, 667 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) (concluding that trial court failed to make express finding in order that HRS had ability to comply with court’s directives); State, Dep’t of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bills, 661 So. 2d 69, 70 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (stating,…
-
Facyson v. Jenne, 821 So. 2d 1169 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)…ature of mandamus did not lie, concluding that the department’s duty to take physical custody of inmates committed to its treatment facilities was ministerial. We recognize that in State, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services v. Maxwell, 667 So. 2d 980 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996), this court reversed an order holding the department in contempt for failing to move an incompetent defendant from the county jail to an appropriate facility within the fifteen-day period specified in section 916.107(l)(a). There…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Robbins v. Robbins, 429 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Strauser v. Strauser, 303 So. 2d 663 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Fla. Coast Bank OF Pompano Beach v. Mayes, 433 So. 2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Grooms v. State, 661 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)
- State v. Bills, 661 So. 2d 69 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995)