PAMELA D. WENDEL, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT WENDEL, JR., 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a contempt order because the trial court failed to comply with Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 by not indicating the defendant was subject to criminal contempt, not stating essential facts, and not affording reasonable time for defense preparation.
A contempt order lacking a purge provision constitutes criminal contempt and must strictly comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, including notice of the criminal nature of the contempt, statement of essential facts, and reasonable time for defense preparation.
[1] A contempt order without a purge provision must be treated as criminal contempt and must strictly comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840, including notice t…
Previewing 1 of 1 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“Strict compliance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 is required in indirect criminal contempt proceedings.”
Court explaining the mandatory nature of Rule 3.840 compliance in criminal contempt cases.
Pamela D. Wendel was found in contempt for violating an injunction. The trial court issued a Rule to Show Cause that did not comply with Rule 3.840 re…
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 Purge Provision cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Pamela D. Wendel, seeks review of an order finding her in contempt for violating an injunction. We agree with Appellant that because the contempt order did not contain a purge provision, the contempt must be characterized as criminal contempt. See Parisi v. Broward County, 769 So. 2d 359, 365 (Fla. 2000); Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422, 424 (Fla.1977). Strict compliance with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 is required in indirect criminal contempt proceedings. Levey v. D’Angelo, 819 So. 2d 864, 869 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). Appellant is correct that the trial court’s Rule to Show Cause did not comply with rule 3.840 because it gave no indication that she was subject to criminal contempt, it did not state the essential facts constituting the contempt or attach the contempt motion, nor did it afford her a reasonable time for preparation of a defense. See Pugliese, 347 So. 2d at 426; Flanagan v. State, 840 So. 2d 379, 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003); Young v. Wood-Cohan, 727 So. 2d 322, 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Russ v. State, 622 So. 2d 501, 502 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993). Noncompliance with rule 3.840 constitutes fundamental error. Hunt v. State, 659 So. 2d 363, 364 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
Accordingly, we REVERSE the contempt order without prejudice to proceed against Appellant in accordance with rule 3.840.
WEBSTER, DAVIS, and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
J-Ii Invs., Inc. v. Leon Cnty., 21 So. 3d 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…ocedural and constitutional protections. See Parisi v. Broward County, 769 So. 2d 359, 365 (Fla. 2000). In indirect criminal contempt proceedings, trial courts must strictly comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840. See Wendel v. Wendel, 958 So. 2d 1039, 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). Rule 3.840(a) requires the trial court to issue an Order to Show Cause informing the defendant that he/she is subject to criminal contempt and stating the essential facts constituting the contempt. Id. This rule also requi…
-
Ash v. Campion, 247 So. 3d 581 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)
-
Bret Mayo v. Kerry Mayo O/ B/ O Natalie Gracyn Mayo and Madeline Olivia Mayo, 260 So. 3d 497 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)…se it incorporated and attached the former wife's sworn petition). Nor did the order put Mayo on notice that he was facing criminal contempt. See Smith v. State, 144 So. 3d 651, 655 (Fla. 2d DCA 2014); Bray, 574 So. 2d at 1116; Wendel v. Wendel, 958 So. 2d 1039, 1040 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The contempt proceedings were fundamentally flawed from the start, and as such reversal is required due to these deficiencies even in the absence of an objection to the sufficiency of the show cause order by Mayo below.…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rocco Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422 (Fla. 1977)
- Parisi v. Broward Cnty., 769 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2000)
- Levey v. D'Angelo, 819 So. 2d 864 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Russ v. State, 622 So. 2d 501 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993)
- 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)
- Young v. Wood-Cohan, 727 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Delane M. Futch and Milton M. Futch v. Dave Valentine Ins., Inc., 840 So. 2d 379 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)