JAMES PETER POLITZ, APPELLANT,
v.
WENDY SALKIN BOOTH, 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.
James Politz appeals his civil contempt conviction and a $500 fine imposed for violating a dating violence injunction. The court affirmed the contempt finding but reversed the fine because it lacked the coercive or compensatory characteristics required for civil contempt sanctions and failed to include a purge provision.
The court reversed the $500 fine because it did not satisfy the requirements for a valid civil contempt fine, but affirmed the contempt finding and the order to comply with the injunction. A civil contempt fine must be coercive or compensatory, include a purge provision allowing the fine to be avoided through compliance, and must be based on consideration of the contemnor's financial resources.
[1] Fines for civil contempt must be coercive or compensatory, not punitive.
[2] A valid civil contempt fine must include a purge provision allowing the violator to avoid or reduce the fine by complying with the injunction.
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“Civil contempt fines are levied to coerce the violator into complying with the terms of the injunction.”
Establishes the purpose and nature of civil contempt fines, distinguishing them from punitive criminal contempt fines
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligencePolitz and Booth were involved in a dating relationship. A permanent injunction against dating violence was entered against Politz on July 30, 2003. 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 Coercive Fines cases and more on FLexlaw
[*398] POLEN, J.
Appellant James Politz appeals a final order finding him guilty of civil contempt and a final order denying his motion to vacate the final civil contempt order. This ease arises out of a permanent injunction against dating violence entered against Politz on July 30, 2003. Politz and Appel-lee, Wendy Booth were involved in a dating relationship before the imposition of the injunction. On September 18, 2003, Booth filed a pro se motion for civil contempt/enforeement, alleging that Politz had violated the permanent injunction. On October 14, 2003, the trial court found Politz guilty of civil contempt, ordered him to comply with the permanent injunction, and imposed a $500 fine, payable within 30 days. We reverse the trial court’s imposition of the $500 fine, finding that it was not coercive or compensatory in nature, and affirm the remainder of the trial court’s order without further discussion.
While the purpose of a criminal contempt fine is to punish, fines for civil contempt are considered coercive or compensatory. Parisi v. Broward County, 769 So. 2d 359, 363 (Fla.2000). Civil contempt fines are levied to coerce the violator into complying with the terms of the injunction. Gregory v. Rice, 727 So. 2d 251, 254 (Fla.1999). To be a valid civil contempt fine, the order imposing the fine must include a purge provision. Id. A purge provision allows the fine to be avoided or reduced if the violator complies with the injunction. When imposing coercive fines, “the court must consider the financial resources of the contemnor in setting the amount of the fine.” Parisi, 769 So. 2d at 366.
We find that the trial court erred in imposing the $500 fine. The fine did not satisfy the coercive or compensatory requirements necessary for a valid civil contempt fine. The fine did not include a purge provision giving Politz the opportunity to avoid or reduce the fine by compliance with the injunction, and the trial court made no finding as to Politz’s financial resources before levying the fine. Nor is there any indication the fine was to be paid to Booth to compensate her for some damage she incurred as a result of Politz’s violation of the injunction. Therefore, we reverse the trial court’s imposition of the $500 fine, and affirm the remainder of the trial court’s order. STEVENSON, C.J., and CROW, DAVID F., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lewis v. Nical OF Palm Beach, Inc., 959 So. 2d 745 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…Rash and the firm notice and the opportunity to be heard. The Lewis Parties’ Challenge to the Trial Court’s Refusal to Hold the Nical Parties in Civil Contempt “[Fjines for civil contempt are considered coercive or compensatory.” Politz v. Booth, 910 So. 2d 397, 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Here, the trial court concluded that neither Bilton’s conversation with White nor the issuance of the subpoena could support a finding of civil contempt as neither type of sanction was sustainable: [I]t is clear that the v…
-
Boby Express Co. v. Guerin, 930 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…Fla.1987)(stating that “a non-final order for which no appeal is provided by rule 9.130 is reviewable by certiorari review”). Second, to sustain a civil contempt fine, the order imposing the fine must include a purge provision. See Politz v. Booth, 910 So. 2d 397, 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). Furthermore, the civil sanction im [*844] posed cannot be punitive in nature because “the purpose of a criminal contempt fine is to punish, [and] fines for civil contempt are considered coercive or compensatory.” See Parisi…
-
Whitby v. Infinity Radio, Inc., 961 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…ourt can enforce an order of contempt, it must first determine, by competent substantial evidence, that the contemnor has the present ability to pay from some available asset. Buchanan v. Buchanan, 932 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Politz v. Booth, 910 So. 2d 397, 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). For a coercive fine, the court “must consider the offending party’s financial resources and the seriousness of the burden on that particular party.” Johnson, 573 So. 2d at 824 (citing United States v. United Mine Workers, 3…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Parisi v. Broward Cnty., 769 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2000)
- Gregory v. Rice, 727 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1999)