STATE, EX REL. DANIEL H. TREZEVANT,
v.
J. R. MCLEOD, AS SHERIFF OF HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA
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.
In this habeas corpus case, the Florida Supreme Court held that an indefinite commitment order for civil contempt for failure to pay alimony is void because it does not establish that the defendant has the present ability to comply with the underlying court order. The court established that process contempt commitments must be based on an affirmative finding that compliance is within the defendant's power, and this finding must appear on the face of the commitment order.
The court held that the commitment order is void for indefiniteness. A process contempt commitment for refusing to obey a court order must be based on an affirmative finding that it is within the defendant's power to obey the order, and this finding must appear on the face of the commitment order itself. Because the order here was predicated on past non-compliance without establishing present ability to comply, it was void.
“a "process" contempt commitment for refusing to obey an order of court must he based on an affirmative finding that it is within the power of the defendant to obey the order and such finding must be made to appear on the face of the order of commitment, else it is void”
Establishes the fundamental requirement that civil contempt commitments must include an affirmative finding of the defendant's ability to comply, which must appear in the commitment order itself.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDaniel H. Trezevant was found guilty of contempt by a Circuit Judge for refusing to obey a court order requiring him to pay alimony. The Circuit Judge…
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 Ability To Comply With Court Order cases and more on FLexlaw
We hold that the order of commitment is void for indefiniteness and that the petitioner should be discharged.
Under Section 4162 C. G. L., 2535 R. G. S., a refusal to obey any legal order, mandate or decree given by a Circuit Judge either in term time or in vacation relative to any business of the Court, after due notice thereof, is punishable as a contempt.
In the case now before us the Circuit Judge, after proper notice to defendant, found him guilty of refusal to abide by an order of the Circuit Court requiring him to pay alimony and thereupon ordered him to be committed to jail for his contempt' until he complies with the order of the Court, or until the further order of the Court.
The question arising in habeas corpus brought to challenge the commitment order, is whether or not the order can be enforced, in view of its indefiniteness as to the terms of imprisonment for which the condemned is to be committed.
Under the most respectable authority on contempt that we have been able to find, a “process” contempt commitment for refusing to obey an order of court must he based on an affirmative finding that it is within the power of the defendant to obey the order and such finding must be made to appear on the face of the order of commitment, else it is void. Ex Parte Cohen, 6 Cal. 318; Repalje on Contempt, *231par. 129. The order here involved is not an order of that nature.
The contempt order issued in this case appears to be predicated solely on a finding of past non-compliance with the court’s order, and not on any present failure to comply therewith, although able so to do. Therefore, the contempt being in its nature a punishment for what the defendant has heretofore done, is void because it specified no definite term of imprisonment. People, ex rel. Hinckley, v. Pirfenbrink, 96 Ill. 68; Ex Parte Alexander, 2 Am. Law. Reg. 44; Whitten v. State, 36 Ind. 196; In re: Hammel, 9 R. I. 248; Yates v. People, 6 Johns (N. Y.) 337.
Petitioner discharged without prejudice to further appropriate procedure in the Court below.
Whitfield, C. J., and Ellis, Terrell, Brown and Buford, J. J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1976)…petition for certio-rari granted the decision of the District Court of Appeal, First District, in Faircloth v. Faircloth, reported at 321 So. 2d 87 (Fla. App. 1, 1975), which conflicts with this Court’s decision in State ex rel. Trezevant v. McLeod, 126 Fla. 229, 170 So. 735 (1936), and the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Ratner v. Ratner, 297 So. 2d 344 (Fla.App. 3, 1974), thereby vesting jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to Article V, Section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution.…1 / 2
-
In the Interest of S. L. T., 180 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)…conduct which also constituted a crime. . Demetree v. State, supra; Ballengee v. State, Fla.App.1962, 144 So. 2d 68; 17 C.J.S. Contempt § 62(5). . Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Tampa Southern R. Co., supra; State ex rel. Trezevant v. McLeod, 1936, 126 Fla. 229, 170 So. 735; Orr, for Use and Benefit of Walton v. Orr, 1939, 141 Fla. 112, 192 So. 466; Demetree v. State, supra; South Dade Farms, Inc. v. Peters, Fla. 1956, 88 So. 2d 891; Dykes v. Dykes, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 598; Schoenthal v. Schoenthal, F…
-
Faircloth v. Faircloth, 321 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)…city. Yandell v. Yandell, 160 Fla. 164, 33 So. 2d 869; Satterfield v. Satterfield, Fla., 39 So. 2d 72.” We find that the evidence fully supports the contempt commitment entered by the trial judge and we now turn to State ex rel Trezevant v. McLeod, 126 Fla. 229, 170 So. 735 (1936), which appellant cites in support of his contention that the contempt commitment must reveal on its face an affirmative finding that the con-temnor had the ability to obey the final judgment or that his inability was brought upon…1 / 2
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence