MILES J. GOPMAN, AS ATTORNEY OF RECORD FOR: THERESA BERTRAM AND BERESFORD BERTRAM, HER HUSBAND; MISSIONWOOD MIRAMAR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC.; LILOUTI MANSARAM; UNKNOWN PARTIES IN POSSESSION # 1; UNKNOWN PARTIES IN POSSESSION # 2; IF LIVING, AND ALL UNKNOWN PARTIES CLAIMING BY, THROUGH, UNDER AND AGAINST THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT(S) WHO ARE NOT KNOWN TO BE DEAD OR ALIVE, WHETHER SAID UNKNOWN PARTIES MAY CLAIM AN INTEREST AS SPOUSES, HEIRS, DEVISEES, GRANTEES, OR OTHER CLAIMANTS, APPELLANT,
v.
WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK, F.A. SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO HOMESIDE LENDING, INC., F/K/A BANCBOSTON MORTGAGE CORPORATION, F/K/A STOCKTON, WHATLEY, DAVIN AND COMPANY, 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 appellate court held that the trial court erred in finding the attorney in contempt and ordering incarceration without sufficient evidence or proper due process.
An attorney's client faced foreclosure; the attorney filed motions related to bankruptcy stays. The bank moved for sanctions against the attorney for …
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
HAZOURI, J.
In this foreclosure action instituted by appellee, Washington Mutual Bank, the Bertrams filed motions to dismiss the foreclosure action for alleged violations of stays in effect under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Bankruptcy Act. Appellee responded to the motions and also filed a motion for sanctions for the failure of the Bertrams’ attorney, Miles J. Gopman, appellant herein, to give appellee notice of the bankruptcy. In its motion, appellee asserted that it should be awarded attorney’s fees as a sanction.
At the hearing on the motion for sanctions, the trial court found appellant in contempt. It entered an order granting appellee’s motion for sanctions and ordering appellant to be incarcerated for five days due to in-court misconduct.
We have examined the transcript of the hearing and found nothing in the record to support the trial court’s finding of any misconduct on the part of appellant. Furthermore, incarceration as a sanction on such a motion is not authorized.
The incarceration in the instant case could only be imposed based upon a finding of direct criminal contempt. There is no evidence in the record to support such a finding. Furthermore, the trial court deprived appellant of due process in that it did not follow the procedures outlined in Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.880. The trial court did not inform appellant of the accusation against him, ask whether he had any cause to show why he should not be held in contempt or permit him to present evidence excusing or mitigating the circumstances. We hereby reverse the trial court’s order granting sanctions and finding appellant in contempt.
REVERSED.
STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bauder v. State, 923 So. 2d 1223 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…offer any mitigation of his conduct. As the trial court summarily found Mr. Bauder in direct criminal contempt and sentenced him without complying with the rule, the judgment and sentence must be reversed.1 See Gopman v. Washington Mut. Bank, F.A., 885 So. 2d 1037, 1038 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Kendrick v. Kendrick, 876 So. 2d 730 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004); Patz v. State, 691 So. 2d 66, 67 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997)(stating that “[t]he case law in this area is very clear that strict adherence to the rule is absolutely imperati…