HARRY MINOR, APPELLANT,
v.
ALLEN HEIMBACH, 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 Florida District Court of Appeal reversed a contempt order that sentenced an individual to jail for failing to pay a monetary award, holding that such imprisonment for debt is prohibited by Florida law.
No, Florida law prohibits imprisonment for the payment of money, except for fines imposed by lawful authority.
“In no case shall a capias ad satis-faciendum be issued upon a judgment, nor shall the body of any defendant be subject to arrest or confinement for the payment of money, except it be for fines imposed by lawful authority.”
This quote from § 55.14, F.S.A. establishes the legal prohibition against imprisonment for debt.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant was sentenced to 60 days in jail or until he paid $817.05 to the plaintiff. This sum represented an award from a workmen's compensation …
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 Contempt Of Court cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellant takes this appeal from a “supplemental order of contempt”, sentencing him to jail for a period of 60 days “or until the sum of $817.05 is paid to the plaintiff.”
It appears that the sum of $817.05 is based upon an award in a workmen’s compensation case. This action was commenced by appellee-plaintiff pursuant to § 440.24, F.S.A., to enforce payment of compensation due him by virtue of that award.
We are satisfied that the appealed order violates § 55.14, F.S.A.1 and therefore must be, and is hereby, reversed.
Reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shiffman v. Stumpff, 445 So. 2d 1104 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…Panter v. Werbel-Roth Securities, Inc., 406 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); George Fischer Ltd. v. Plastiline, Inc., 379 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Leviten v. Gaunt, 360 So. 2d 112 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978); Century Brick Corp. of America v. Gatewood, 157 So. 2d 95 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963); Rever v. Lapidus, 151 So. 2d 61 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963). Appellee contends that he has strictly complied, because he filed his affidavit of compliance “within such time as the court allows,” a matter within the trial court’s discreti…