ROBERT BALDWIN, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
JACQUELINE BALDWIN, 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.
The court held that a party must have notice and time to prepare for a civil contempt hearing to satisfy due process requirements.
[1] A party facing civil contempt sanctions is entitled to a proceeding that meets the fundamental fairness requirements of due process.
[2] A trial court's failure to provide a party with adequate notice and time to prepare for a civil contempt proceeding violates that party's due process rights.
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 intelligenceDuring a dissolution trial, the court held the Former Husband in indirect civil contempt for failing to disclose assets, immediately placing him in cu…
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 Appellate Review Of Interlocutory Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
In this dissolution of marriage action, Robert Baldwin, Jr., (“Former Husband”) appeals the final order on equitable distribution.1 Former Husband raises three issues on appeal, two of which are challenges to separate interlocutory orders holding him in indirect civil contempt. See Saul v. Basse, 399 So.2d 130, 133 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (holding that an appeal of a final order includes review of all interlocutory orders leading to the final order, whether separately appealed or not (citations omitted)). 'We affirm the final'order of equitable distribution without further discussion and affirm the second order of indirect civil contempt for reasons explained below. However, we vacate the first order of indirect civil contempt, dated July 1, 2015, because the trial court’s failure to provide Former Husband with any noticé of the contempt proceeding violated his right to due process.
The parties appeared before the court for trial on July 1,2015, on their respective petitions for dissolution of marriage. At the onset of. the trial, .the court began questioning each party regarding the marital assets to be divided. Based upon the initial responses that it received to this inquiry, the court became concerned that Former Husband had not complied with an earlier court order that required the parties to disclose all of their assets at least seven days prior to trial. The court then reviewed Former Husband’s financial affidavit filed in the case, and thereafter summarily “moved into an order to show cause *567hearing giving [Former Husband] an opportunity to explain why he should not be held in indirect civil contempt for failing to comply with mandatory disclosure.” After considering Former Husband’s testimony and explanation, the court held Former Husband in indirect civil contempt, immediately placed him into custody, and entered a civil contempt order that same day, which allowed Former Husband to purge his contempt by filing a detailed, accurate, and complete financial affidavit listing all marital assets,2 Former Husband promptly complied with this contempt order and was released from custody the following day..
Former Husband argues that the trial court erred in holding the show cause hearing without allowing him sufficient time to prepare a defense to the contempt charge. We agree. However, because he was held in civil contempt and has long since filed the required financial affidavit and been released from custody, the question of mootness arises. An issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination can have no actual effect. See DeHoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553, 15 So.2d 258, 259 (Fla.1943), Nevertheless, under certain circumstances, an appellate court may consider a moot issue when the question raised is likely to recur. Godwin v. State, 593 So.2d 211, 212 (Fla.1992) (citing Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 218 n. 1 (Fla.1984)). Here, based on certain language used by the court in its order, it appears likely that the trial court will implement this same summary civil contempt procedure in other family law cases. Therefore, we find it necessary to address the error in the civil contempt proceedings.
“It is a fundamental tenet of our system of civil justice that a party must have actual notice of and time to prepare for a contested hearing.” Dileo v. Dileo, 939 So.2d 181, 184 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (citing Harreld v. Harreld, 682 So.2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)). Moreover, “[w]hile a person facing civil contempt sanctions is not entitled to the full panoply of due process rights afforded to a person facing indirect criminal contempt charges, he or she is nonetheless entitled to a proceeding that meets the fundamental fairness requirements of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Bresch v. Henderson, 761 So.2d 449, 451 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (citation omitted). These fundamental principles are applicable for civil contempt hearings in the family law context. Dileo, 939 So.2d at 184 (citing Woolf v. Woolf, 901 So.2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (additional citation omitted)). In this case) the trial court’s failure to provide Former Husband with proper notice and time to prepare for a civil contempt proceeding clearly violated his right to due process.
Accordingly, wé affirm the final order of equitable distribution and the second order of indirect civil contempt,3 but remand with directions that the trial court vacate its July 1, 2015 order of civil contempt.
*568AFFIRMED, but REMANDED with directions.
TORPY and COHEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Kane v. Kane, 247 So. 3d 57 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…on omitted). These fundamental principles are applicable for civil contempt hearings in the family law context. Dileo, 939 So. 2d at 184 (citing Woolf v. Woolf, 901 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (additional citation omitted)). Baldwin v. Baldwin, 204 So. 3d 565, 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016). In family law civil contempt proceedings based upon a party’s failure to meet his or her support obligations, the family law procedural rules spell out the due process requirements of proper notice and time to prepare:…
-
Pimienta v. Rosenfeld (Fla. 3d DCA 2024)…annot be considered moot as contained in the final judgment. See generally Herce v. Maines, 317 So. 3d 1211, 1215 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (recognizing that the order dismissing the former wife's contempt motion as moot was final); Baldwin v. Baldwin, 204 So. 3d 565, 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (“An issue is moot when the controversy has been so fully resolved that a judicial determination can have no actual effect.”). The failure to make such findings constitutes reversible error. Affirmed in part; reversed i…
-
Varner v. Varner (Fla. 5th DCA 2023)…ment because “it would be unfair to allow an order in the court file to continue to show that the husband had been found in contempt for failure to meet a financial obligation when the finding of contempt was improper”); see also Baldwin v. Baldwin, 204 So. 3d 565, 567 (Fla. 5th DCA 2016) (dispensing with mootness concerns and remanding with instructions to vacate a contempt order because the underlying issue was likely to recur). III. In sum, we reverse the trial court’s finding of contempt and remand wit…
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 (11 total)
- Eugene Holly, M.D. v. Albert W. Auld, M.D., 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1984)
- Sallas v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992)
- Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992)
- Jones v. State, 153 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1943)
- Harreld v. Harreld, 682 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
- Saul v. Basse, 399 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Woolf v. Woolf, 901 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Dehoff v. Imeson, 153 Fla. 553 (Fla. 1943)
- THE Phifer State Bank v. Clark Gourley, 153 Fla. 595 (Fla. 1943)
- Bresch v. Cal Henderson, 761 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)