ADAM BISS
v.
DEVONA CODY BISS
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 civil contempt sanction in a family law matter must be based on evidence of the injured party's actual loss and cannot exceed compensation for that loss.
[1] In civil contempt proceedings, a sanction imposed for compensatory purposes must be based on evidence of the injured party's actual loss and cannot exceed that loss.
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“Judicial sanctions in civil contempt proceedings may . . . be employed for either or both of two purposes; to coerce the [contemnor] into compliance with the court's order, and to compensate the complainant for losses sustained.”
Court explaining the permissible purposes of civil contempt sanctions
In 2016, the parties agreed that the father would claim one child and the mother would claim the other for tax purposes, with rotation of the remainin…
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 Dissolution Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
ADAM BISS,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D19-1112
DEVONA CODY BISS,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed March 13, 2020
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Flagler County, Christopher A. France, Judge.
David D. Naples, Jr. and John J. Spence, of Naples & Spence, Attorneys at Law, PLLC, St. Augustine, for Appellant.
Alicia
R.
Washington, of Alicia
R.
Washington, P.A., Bunnell, for Appellee.
EVANDER, C.J.,
Adam Biss (“Former Husband”) appeals an order that: (1) denied his motion to vacate a qualified domestic relations order (“QDRO”); and (2) found him in contempt for improperly claiming both of the parties’ children as exemptions on his 2017 tax return. Because of the lack of a transcript, we can only address errors that appear on the face of the record. See Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla.
In 2016, the court approved the parties’ agreement to modify the final dissolution judgment with respect to claiming tax exemptions, as follows: Father shall be entitled to claim [S.B.] for purpose of the dependency deduction and the Mother shall be entitled to claim [C.B.] for the purpose of the dependency deduction[.] When only one child is eligible to be claimed, the parties shall rotate claiming the remaining child yearly giving first rotation to the parent who did not claim [C.B.] the year prior.
Although the parties’ oldest child had reached the age of majority in 2017, it was undisputed that both children were eligible to be claimed as tax exemptions for that tax year. After determining that Former Husband violated the modification order by taking both children as tax exemptions for 2017, the trial court ordered, as a sanction, that Devona Biss (“Former Wife”) “shall claim ALL eligible offspring . . . as tax dependents for the next four (4) tax years.” This was error.
Contempt may be either civil or criminal. See Parisi v. Broward Cty., 769 So. 2d 359, 363 (Fla. 2000). In the instant case, the contempt process utilized was for civil contempt. Punishment for civil contempt is remedial and for the benefit of the complainant. Id. at 364. “Judicial sanctions in civil contempt proceedings may . . . be employed for either or both of two purposes; to coerce the [contemnor] into compliance with the court’s order, and to compensate the complainant for losses sustained.” United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 303–04 (1947); see also Nical of
AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED.
WALLIS and TRAVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258 (U.S. 1947)
- Somma v. Metra Elecs. Corp., 727 So. 2d 302 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999)
- Nical OF Palm Beach, Inc. v. Lewis, 815 So. 2d 647 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)