TED K. BROWN, FORMER HUSBAND, PETITIONER,
v.
VALERIE HAYS BROWN, FORMER WIFE, RESPONDENT
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.
A former husband seeks certiorari review of a trial court's judgment finding him in indirect civil contempt for violating prior court orders related to contact with his child's school and child support obligations. The appellate court dismisses portions of the petition for lack of jurisdiction due to failure to establish irreparable harm and denies the remaining portions on the merits.
The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction as to the first two arguments because petitioner failed to establish irreparable harm—sanctions were withheld pending future violations and the trial court merely clarified future conduct. The court denied the remaining arguments concerning child support on the merits.
[1] Certiorari jurisdiction requires a showing of irreparable harm.
[2] A claim of irreparable harm is premature and speculative when sanctions for alleged violations have been withheld pending future violations.
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“Certiorari jurisdiction does not arise unless the court first establishes irreparable harm.”
Establishes the jurisdictional requirement for certiorari review that petitioner failed to satisfy for the school contact allegations.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe petitioner (former husband) was found in willful violation of prior court orders for sending a letter to his child's teacher with a note for the c…
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 Willful Violation Of Court Order cases and more on FLexlaw
Petitioner, the former husband, seeks certiorari review of a final judgment of indirect civil contempt. He argues that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of the law in (1) finding him in willful violation of prior court orders for sending a letter to his child’s teacher with a note for the child and sending emails to the child’s school; (2) modifying the 2009 injunction; (3) failing to grant him sufficient time to present his defense on the child support issue; and (4) finding him in willful violation of his child support obligation. Because the trial court withheld *191imposing sanctions for the violations pertaining to Petitioner’s contact with the child’s school pending any future violations of the court’s orders, Petitioner has not established irreparable injury with respect to his first argument. See Holden Cove, Inc. v. 4 Mac Holdings, Inc., 948 So.2d 1041, 1042 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007) (rejecting an irreparable harm argument as being premature and speculative). Petitioner has also failed to show any irreparable injury with respect to his second argument given that the trial court merely clarified what conduct would be considered contemptuous in the future. We, therefore, dismiss the certiorari petition as to these allegations for lack of jurisdiction. See Jackson v. Computer Sci. Raytheon, 36 So.3d 754, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010) (“Certiorari jurisdiction does not arise unless the court first establishes irreparable harm.”). As to Petitioner’s third and fourth arguments concerning his child support obligation, we deny those portions of the petition on the merits.
DISMISSED in part and DENIED in part on. the merits.
DAVIS, CLARK, and ROWE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Holden Cove, Inc. v. 4 MAC Holdings, Inc., 948 So. 2d 1041 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Jackson v. Computer Sci. Raytheon & CNA Ins. Co., 36 So. 3d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 2010)