IN THE MATTER OF NICHOLAS T. STEFFENS, ESQ., APPELLANT
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 attorney Nicholas T. Steffens was fined $1,000 for contempt after failing to appear at a show cause hearing in a probate matter. The court reversed, holding that the contempt sanction was actually criminal in nature and therefore violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 by failing to provide required procedural safeguards.
The contempt sanction was reversed because although styled as civil contempt, the flat, unconditional fine was actually an indirect criminal contempt sanction that violated Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 by failing to afford the defendant constitutionally required criminal procedure protections.
[1] A contempt sanction imposed as a flat, unconditional fine without an opportunity for the contemnor to avoid payment through compliance constitutes criminal contempt.
[2] A contempt sanction is considered indirect criminal contempt when it is based on conduct occurring outside the presence of the judge, such as failure to comply with a cou…
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“Any flat, unconditional fine is considered a criminal sanction because it does not afford the opportunity to purge the contempt.”
Establishes the controlling rule that determines whether a contempt sanction is civil or criminal based on the presence or absence of a purge provision.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSteffens represented Debra Tripp in a summary probate proceeding. The trial court ordered both Steffens and Tripp to appear to explain deficiencies in…
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.
Nicholas T. Steffens, an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida, appeals a contempt fine imposed by the court for failing to appear at a hearing. We reverse, as the contempt proceedings did not comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840.
Mr. Steffens represented Debra Tripp in a summary probate proceeding. Mr. Stef-fens and Ms. Tripp were ordered to appear before the court to explain why certain deficiencies in the summary administration petition had not been remedied in a timely manner. Ms. Tripp appeared at the hearing, but Mr. Steffens did not. As a consequence of his failure to appear at the show cause hearing, the court imposed a “civil contempt fine” against Mr. Steffens in the amount of $1,000.1 This appeal followed.
Contempt may either be civil or criminal in nature. Parisi v. Broward County, 769 So. 2d 359, 363 (Fla.2000). The distinction between civil and criminal contempt will determine both the quantum of proof required for conviction, as well as the procedural due process afforded the alleged contemnor. “[T]he stated purpose of a contempt sanction is not determinative of whether a contempt sanction is civil or criminal.” Id. at 364. The goal of civil contempt is remedial and for the benefit of the complainant, while the goal of criminal contempt is to vindicate the authority of the court or to otherwise punish offensive conduct. See Nical of Palm Beach, Inc. v. Lewis, 815 So. 2d 647, 650 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
Civil contempt fines are levied to coerce the violator into complying with the terms of a court order. 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. A purge provision allows the fine to be avoided or reduced if the violator complies with the court order. Id. As the order fining Mr. Steffens did not include a purge or coercive provision, the contempt could not have been civil in nature. “Any flat, unconditional fine is considered a criminal sanction because it does not afford the opportunity to purge the contempt.” Parisi, 769 So. 2d at 365 (quoting Int’l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 829, 114 S.Ct. 2552, 129 L.Ed.2d 642 (1994)).
Consequently, we conclude that, though styled as a civil contempt order, the sanction imposed by the trial court was actually one of indirect criminal contempt.
Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 controls indirect contempt proceedings and insures adequate procedural safeguards. Here, the order to show cause did not place Mr. Steffens on notice that the court was considering criminal contempt. Indeed, the order entered after the hearing imposed a “civil contempt fine.” Since criminal contempt is “a crime in the ordinary sense,” imposition of criminal contempt sanctions requires that an alleged contemnor be offered the same constitutional due process protections afforded to a criminal defendant. Parisi, 769 So. 2d at 364; see Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 826, 114 S.Ct. 2552; Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194, 201, 88 S.Ct. 1477, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (1968).
These rights include the right of criminal defendants to be represented by counsel, the right to have the State prove the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and the right against self-incrimination. See Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 826-27, 114 S.Ct.
2552. Strict compliance with rule 3.840 is necessary to safeguard procedural due process. McCrimager v. State, 919 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).
Because the contempt proceeding did not comply with rule 3.840, we must reverse. On remand, the court may, if it so chooses, proceed again with contempt proceedings in conformity with the authorities discussed herein.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
PALMER, C.J., PLEUS and ORFINGER, JJ., concur. . Mr. Steffens filed a timely motion for rehearing, offering an explanation for his failure to appear. The court denied the motion without a hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Myer Berlow v. Berlow, 21 So. 3d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009)…69 So. 2d 359, 364 (Fla.2000). “The goal of civil contempt is remedial and for the benefit of the complainant, while the goal of criminal contempt is to vindicate the authority of the court or to otherwise punish offensive conduct.” In re Steffens, 988 So. 2d 142, 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); see also Parisi, 769 So. 2d at 363-64; Jones v. Ryan, 967 So. 2d 342, 344 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). “In order for a sanction to qualify as one imposable for civil contempt, it must contain a purge provision that affords the conte…
-
J-Ii Invs., Inc. v. Leon Cnty., 21 So. 3d 86 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009)…9 So. 2d at 365. If a contempt order simply imposes a flat and unconditional fíne, it is considered a criminal sanction because the defendant is not given the opportunity to purge through compliance. See Parisi 769 So. 2d at 365-66; In re Steffens, 988 So. 2d 142, 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008); Levey v. D'Angelo, 819 So. 2d 864, 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002). However, if the order imposes a fine, yet provides a way for the contemnor to reduce the amount imposed or avoid the fine altogether, it is considered a civil cont…
-
State v. Berg, 45 So. 3d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…sel. Such sanction is plainly a criminal contempt sanction — a compelled “donation” to the county law library in no way benefits the adverse party and “ ‘[a]ny flat, unconditional fine is considered a criminal [contempt] sanction.’ ” In re Steffens, 988 So. 2d 142, 144 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008) (quoting Parisi v. Broward Cnty., 769 So. 2d 359, 365 (Fla.2000)). Counsel’s failure to appear for a scheduled hearing has been characterized as an “indirect criminal contempt,” triggering the application of Florida Rule of…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (U.S. 1968)
- Int'l Union v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (U.S. 1994)
- Parisi v. Broward Cnty., 769 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2000)
- Gregory v. Rice, 727 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1999)
- Nical OF Palm Beach, Inc. v. Lewis, 815 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)
- Brown v. State, 919 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)
- Zebulon McCRIMAGER v. State, 919 So. 2d 673 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)