JUDITH L. LAROCHE F/K/A JUDITH L. BRIGGS, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN D. BRIGGS, 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 court held that the trial court did not err in its contempt findings but erred in imposing sanctions for days the former wife was entitled to visitation.
[1] A trial court's findings of contempt are supported by competent substantial evidence when the record contains sufficient evidence to establish the contemptuous conduct, e…
[2] A trial court has discretion to impose sanctions for contempt, including daily fines, for a party's failure to comply with court orders.
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 intelligenceFormer Wife was held in contempt and sanctioned for failing to return the parties' daughter to Former Husband, the primary custodial parent. Former Wi…
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 Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
In this post-dissolution action, Former Wife appeals from three orders which held her in contempt of court and imposed sanctions for failing to return the parties’ fourteen-year old daughter to Former Husband, the primary residential custodial parent, after the child ran away to Former Wife’s home. Former Wife testified that on one occasion she attempted to return the child to Former Husband but he was not at home, and, when she returned the child to her father on other occasions, the child ran away to her home again. Former Husband testified that the child’s belongings are at Former Wife’s home, and that Former Wife prevents him from communicating with the child. The court thereafter held Former Wife in contempt and awarded Former Husband $6,100 as the aggregate of a $100 per day sanction imposed for Former Wife’s failure to return the child to him from October 15, 1997 to December 15, 1997. The court further allowed to remain in effect the $100 per day fine for each day thereafter the child was not returned to her father. Former Wife argues the trial court erred in making insufficient findings of contempt. We disagree. The court resolved the credibility issues inherent in this case adverse to Former Wife’s position, and, in any event, there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support such findings. See generally Smith v. Brown, 511 So. 2d 659, 660 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). As such, we affirm.
As to the sanctions imposed, we affirm in part. Although we might not have resolved this dispute in the same manner which the trial court utilized, we believe it acted within its discretion in sanctioning Former Wife. However, to the extent that Former Wife was fined $100 per day for those days she would have otherwise had regular visitation with the child, we reverse. On remand, the court is instructed to not fine Former Wife for days on which she was and is entitled to such visitation.
As to all other issues raised in this appeal, we affirm as unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part and REMANDED in accordance with this opinion.
STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
T.H. v. State, 859 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…six residential facility. We agree that this was error. Section 985.229, Florida Statutes (2002), requires that the court order and consider a predisposition report if residential commitment is anticipated or rec [*550] ommended. See M.B. v. State, 720 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The State invites this court to affirm the level six commitment, arguing that although there was no predisposition report, the Department of Juvenile Justice (DJJ) performed a multi-disciplinary staffing and representatives from…
-
E.G. v. State, 263 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Smith v. Brown, 511 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)