BOBY EXPRESS CO., ET AL., PETITIONERS,
v.
MICHELE GUERIN, ET AL., RESPONDENTS
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.
Boby Express Co. and Boby Realty, Inc. sought certiorari review to quash a civil contempt order imposing a daily fine of $1,000 per day for failure to produce documents in a dissolution of marriage case. The Florida Third District Court of Appeal granted certiorari and quashed the order because it violated essential requirements of law governing civil contempt sanctions.
The court's contempt order departed from the essential requirements of law and was improper for three reasons: (1) the daily fine lacked a proper purge provision reflective of civil sanctions; (2) the magnitude of the sanction was punitive in nature rather than coercive or compensatory, making it an inappropriate indirect criminal contempt fine; and (3) the court failed to make findings regarding the actual loss suffered by the injured party, which is required for any sanction.
[1] Civil contempt orders are reviewable by certiorari when the order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of law, causes material injury throughout the pr…
[2] Non-party witnesses unable to seek review of a trial court's final order under rule 9.130, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, may seek review of a contempt order by ce…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“to sustain a civil contempt fine, the order imposing the fine must include a purge provision”
Establishes the requirement that civil contempt orders must include a mechanism allowing the contemnor to purge the contempt
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court ordered Boby Express Co. and Boby Realty, Inc., who were non-party witnesses in a dissolution of marriage case, to appear for depositi…
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 Contempt Order cases and more on FLexlaw
RAMIREZ, J.
Boby Express Co. and Boby Realty, Inc. petition this Court for a writ of certiorari seeking to quash a contempt order of December 9, 2005. We grant certiorari review because the court’s order constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law, the departure results in irreparable harm to the petitioners, and the harm cannot be corrected on direct appeal. '
The court ordered the petitioners, non-party witnesses in the underlying dissolution of marriage case, to appear for deposition and produce documents that were listed in a subpoena duces tecum. The court imposed a fine of one-thousand dollars against each of the petitioners for each day until the day on which the petitioners produced all of the documentation enumerated in the subpoena duces tecum.
Civil contempt orders are properly reviewed by certiorari. See Knorr v. Knorr, 751 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). The applicable standard of review is whether the challenged order (1) constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law; (2) causes material injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings below; and (3) causes injury that is irreparable, as it effectively leaves no adequate remedy at law. See Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla.1995); Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla.1983).
The court’s order departs from the essential requirements of the law on several grounds. First, certiorari review is the only vehicle available to the petitioners to redress any trial court errors. As non-party witnesses, the petitioners are unable to seek review of the trial court’s final order under rule 9.130, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097, 1099 (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 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 v. Broward County, 769 So. 2d 359, 363 (Fla.2000). Although the order imposing a fíne here includes a purge amount of one-thousand dollars a day, it is not reflective of a civil sanction. The magnitude of the sanction imposed instead represents an indirect criminal contempt fine and is thus inappropriate.
Additionally, the imposition of sanctions must have some bearing upon the harm suffered by the injured party. See South Dade Farms, Inc. v. Peters, 88 So. 2d 891, 899 (Fla.1956). The court below failed to make any finding as to the respondent wife’s actual loss. The court’s imposition of the daily sanction amount is thus not justified. Id. See also Fredericks v. Sturgis, 598 So. 2d 94, 97 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)(stating that “[i]f compensation is intended, the fine must be based on evidence of the injured party’s actual loss”).
Therefore, we grant the petition for certiorari and quash the contempt order. Certiorari granted; order of contempt quashed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ross Dress FOR Less Va., Inc. v. Castro, 134 So. 3d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)…Security and Ross seek certiorari review of this order which we grant because the order departs from the essential requirements of the law in ways that will result in irreparable harm not correctable on direct appeal. See Boby Express Co. v. Guerin, 930 So. 2d 842, 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (“The applicable standard of review is whether the challenged order (1) constitutes a departure from the essential requirements of the law; (2) causes material injury throughout the remainder of the proceedings below; and (3)…
-
Menke v. Wendell, 188 So. 3d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)…ure from the essential requirements of the law; (2) causes material injury'throughout the remainder of the proceedings below; and (3) causes injury that is irreparable, as it effectively leaves no adequate remedy at law.” Boby Express Co. v. Guerin, 930 So. 2d 842, 843 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). “It is well established that a party cannot be sanctioned for contempt for violating a court directive or order which is not clear and definite as to how a party is to comply with the court’s command.” Ross Dress for Less V…
-
Westwood ONE, Inc. v. Flight Express, Inc., 940 So. 2d 1241 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…lenge the trial court’s ruling granting Flight Express’ motion to strike as well as the trial court’s ruling granting Flight Express’ motion for default. As such, the grant of certiorari review would be inappropriate. See Boby Express Co. v. Guerin, 930 So. 2d 842 (Fla. 3d DCA2006). DISMISSED. THOMPSON and TORPY, JJ., concur. . At the same time the order granting Flight Express' motion for default does not qualify for review as a final, appealable order since it is simply an order granting a motion, not an…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So. 2d 1097 (Fla. 1987)
- Combs v. State, 436 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 1983)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So. 2d 91 (Fla. 1995)
- Parisi v. Broward Cnty., 769 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2000)
- Yair Barak v. ACS Int'l Projects, Ltd. (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
- S. Dade Farms, Inc. v. Peters, 88 So. 2d 891 (Fla. 1956)
- Knorr v. Knorr, 751 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)
- Fredericks v. Sturgis, 598 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Politz v. Booth, 910 So. 2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)