RICHARD FIELDS AND D. BOSWORTH, LLC
v.
ROBERT TOUSSIE AND MICHAEL TOUSSIE
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 second pre-incarceration hearing is not required for civil contempt sanctions based on past noncompliance when the alleged noncompliance is not disputed.
[1] A second pre-incarceration hearing is not required when a trial court orders incarceration for civil contempt based on past noncompliance where the noncompliance is undis…
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“a second pre-incarceration hearing is generally not required when a trial court orders incarceration for past noncompliance”
Discussing the legal standard for contempt sanctions involving incarceration
Fields and related entities were ordered to provide discovery but failed to comply. The trial court found them in contempt and issued a writ of bodily…
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 Writ Of Bodily Attachment cases and more on FLexlaw
Alex P. Rosenthal and Amanda Jassem Jones of Rosenthal Law Group, Weston, for Appellee Robert Toussie.
PER CURIAM.
Appellants Coastal Development, LLC (“Coastal”) and Richard Fields (“Fields”) appeal the trial court’s orders issuing a writ of bodily attachment against Fields and finding Fields, Coastal, and D. Bosworth, LLC in contempt of court for failure to provide discovery. We affirm on all issues.
Although Fields alleges the trial court abused its discretion by imposing incarceration as a civil contempt sanction and issuing a writ of bodily attachment against him without a second hearing, a second pre-incarceration hearing is generally not required when a trial court orders incarceration for past noncompliance. See Hipschman v. Cochran, 683 So. 2d 209, 212 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). It may be necessary, however, “where the contempt order specifies compliance extra-judicially, i.e., by performance outside the auspices of the court or its adjuncts.” Id. at 212-13. In this case, while the court did allow the appellee to file an ex parte affidavit of noncompliance to obtain the issuance of the writ, Fields’ past noncompliance was not in dispute, admitting as much in his brief.
2
Therefore, a second hearing was unnecessary.
Affirmed. WARNER, KLINGENSMITH and KUNTZ JJ. concur.
* * * Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.