ELLEN T. BAKER, APPELLANT,
v.
KENNETH J. GREEN, 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.
Ellen Baker appeals a contempt order finding her in indirect criminal contempt and imposing a $10,000 fine for disobeying court orders regarding summer visitation. The court reversed the contempt finding and fine because the trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 by issuing an order to show cause without a supporting affidavit or sworn testimony, but affirmed the award of attorney's fees to the former husband.
The contempt order and $10,000 fine must be reversed because the trial court failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 by issuing an order to show cause without a supporting affidavit or sworn testimony. However, the award of attorney's fees to the former husband is affirmed as proper compensation for expenses incurred as a result of Baker's conduct in frustrating visitation rights.
[1] An order imposing a fine to punish disobedience and deter future conduct, without an opportunity to purge the contempt, constitutes indirect criminal contempt.
[2] Indirect criminal contempt proceedings must comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840.
Previewing 2 of 6 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“Where there is no affidavit or sworn testimony to support the issuance of an order to show cause, the failure to comply with the rule is fundamental error and a contempt order arising out of that proceeding may not stand.”
Establishes that the procedural requirement of an affidavit or sworn testimony is mandatory and its absence constitutes fundamental error that invalidates the contempt order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEllen Baker, a former wife, was ordered to comply with a trial court's visitation orders regarding summer custody. Baker failed to comply with these o…
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 Sworn Affidavit cases and more on FLexlaw
GROSS, J.
The former wife, Ellen Baker, appeals an order holding her in contempt of court. The order is properly characterized as involving indirect criminal contempt, since a $10,000 fine was imposed to punish Baker for her disobedience of the trial court’s previous orders and to deter similar conduct in the future. See Pompey v. Cochran, 685 So. 2d 1007, 1012-13 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Another indicator of criminal contempt is that the order did not give the former wife the opportunity to purge herself of the contempt and avoid the fine. See Deter v. Deter, 353 So. 2d 614, 617 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).
An indirect criminal contempt proceeding must comply with the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1279 (Fla.1985). In this case there was no sworn affidavit or testimony to support the trial court’s issuance of the order to show cause. If the order does not issue on the judge’s own motion, Rule 3.840(a) provides that an order to show cause may issue “on affidavit of any person having knowledge of the facts.” Where there is no affidavit or sworn testimony to support the issuance of an order to show cause, the failure to comply with the rule is fundamental error and a contempt order arising out of that proceeding may not stand. See Fay v. State, 608 So. 2d 589, 589 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Hunt v. State, 659 So. 2d 363, 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Judkins v. Ross, 658 So. 2d 658, 659 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Reins v. Johnson, 604 So. 2d 911, 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Starchk v. Wittenberg, 411 So. 2d 1000, 1001 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). This was not a case where the contemnor “affirmatively represented to the trial court that she waived” an irregularity in the contempt procedure. Cf. Persoff v. Persoff, 589 So. 2d 1007, 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).
We reverse that portion of the September 12, 1997 order holding the former wife in contempt and assessing a fine. Should the issue of the amount of a punitive fine arise on remand, we note that the maximum punitive fine that might be assessed for each act of contempt is $500. See Goodman v. State, 468 So. 2d 468, 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Haft v. State, 458 So. 2d 1228, 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Thomas A. Edison College, Inc. v. State Bd. of Indep. Colleges and Univs., 411 So. 2d 257, 258 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Soven v. State, 622 So. 2d 1123, 1126 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993).
We affirm the award of attorney’s fees to the former husband. The proceedings below involved the former husband’s attempt to secure his summer visitation. The record supports the trial judge’s conclusion that the former wife inexcusably frustrated the former husband’s visitation, so that he was forced to resort to court. In addition to the finding of contempt, the order on appeal properly compensated the former husband for expenses he incurred as a result of the former wife’s conduct. Under these circumstances, the award of attorney’s fees was proper. See Rosa v. Rosa, 723 So. 2d 312, 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). The amount awarded for fees was eminently reasonable.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.
TAYLOR, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (15 total)
-
Wilcoxon v. Moller, 132 So. 3d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…the necessary procedural safeguards prerequisite to entering an order of indirect criminal contempt. “An indirect criminal contempt proceeding must comply with the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840.” Baker v. Green, 732 So. 2d 6, 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Rule 3.840(a) requires the court to issue an order to show cause supported by an affidavit or sworn testimony. Id. “Where there is no affidavit or sworn testimony to support the issuance of an order to show cause, the failure…
-
Proctor v. State, 764 So. 2d 752 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…d on the judge’s own motion; however, this circumstance did not apply to these proceedings. The state argued that the unsworn motion does not rise to the level of fundamental error and the issue was therefore waived. We disagree. In Baker v. Green, 732 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999), the court held: An indirect criminal contempt proceeding must comply with the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1279 (Fla.1985). In this case there was no…
-
Yacenda Hudson and Amina McNeil v. Marin, 259 So. 3d 148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…tion. Where the show cause order is, however, premised upon facts outside the trial court's knowledge, the order must be based upon an affidavit or sworn testimony of an individual having personal knowledge of the essential facts."); Baker v. Green, 732 So. 2d 6, 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) ("In this case there was no sworn affidavit or testimony to support the trial court's issuance of the order to show cause.... Where there is no affidavit or sworn testimony to support the issuance of an order to show cause, th…
Previewing 3 of 15 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (19 total)
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)
- Pompey v. Cochran, 685 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Deter v. Dinina D. Deter, 353 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Starchk v. Wittenberg, 411 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)
- Green v. State, 659 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Ests. OF William H. Schutt v. Robert Spielman and wife, 659 So. 2d 363 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Thomas A. Edison Coll., Inc. v. State Bd. of Indep. Colleges & Univs., 411 So. 2d 257 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Reins v. Johnson, 604 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- LEE Cnty. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Cook, 604 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)
- Persoff v. Myron M. Persoff, 589 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)