JOSEPH GAZIL, PETITIONER,
v.
WILLIAM R. HEIDTMAN, SHERIFF OF PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
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.
Joseph Gazil petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a contempt order from the Palm Beach County Circuit Court, claiming he was unlawfully detained for failing to comply with a support payment order. The Florida District Court of Appeal denied the petition, holding that habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for appeal when a contempt order is valid on its face and the court had jurisdiction.
The contempt order was not void because it complied with the requirement of containing an affirmative finding that it was within the defendant's power to obey the prior court order. Habeas corpus cannot be used as a substitute for appeal to challenge the correctness of the court's finding regarding ability to pay when the contempt order is valid on its face and the circuit court had jurisdiction.
[1] A writ of habeas corpus will be denied when the petition does not set forth a prima facie case for its issuance.
[2] A contempt order is valid on its face if the court had jurisdiction over the petitioner and the order contains an affirmative finding, apparent on its face, that it is wi…
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 intelligence“a contempt order for refusing to obey a prior order of the court must be based on an affirmative finding that it is within the power of defendant to obey the order, and such finding must be made to appear on the face of the order of commitment”
Establishes the legal standard for valid contempt orders under Ratner v. Ratner
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn September 1974, a circuit court ordered Gazil to pay a sum to his wife. When Gazil failed to comply, his wife filed a motion for contempt. At the c…
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 Order Of Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
OWEN, Chief Judge.
Joseph Gazil petitions this court for writ of habeas corpus alleging that he is unlawfully held in custody of respondent under a contempt order of the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida. The petition does not set forth a prima facie case for issuance of the writ. We deny the writ and dismiss the pétiti'on.
In this domestic litigation petitioner was ordered in September, 1974, to pay a certain sum to his wife. Upon his failure to comply with the order, the wife filed her motion to have petitioner adjudged in contempt of court and noticed the same for hearing. Neither petitioner nor his attorney appeared at the hearing.
Thereafter, by order entered November 27, 1974, the court adjudged petitioner to be in contempt for his failure to abide by the prior orders of the court, expressly finding in the order that petitioner “ . . .is financially able to pay the costs previously taxed and ordered, that his failure to pay same or any portion thereof has been deliberate, wilful and intentional, that [petitioner] ’ has had sufficient time within which to pay said sums, a portion thereof or to propose an arrangement for their payment with Wife’s attorney . . . .”
The contempt order sentenced petitioner to a term of 30 days in the Palm Beach County jail but provided that he could purge himself of the contempt by either paying to the Wife or her attorney the sum ordered paid in the September, 1974 order or in the alternative, by posting and filing a supersedeas bond with the clerk of the court on or before December 5, 1974, the issue of capias being delayed until this latter date.
No appeal was taken from the November 27, 1974, order of contempt, nor did petitioner purge himself. On December 26, 1974, the Circuit Court issued its order of commitment but for some reason petitioner was not taken into custody by the respondent until February 26, 1975. He now seeks his release by means of petition for writ of habeas corpus on the grounds that the contempt order and the resulting commitment are void.
Simply stated, petitioner’s contention is that the contempt order is void because, while it contained a finding that petitioner had the financial ability to pay and had wilfully, deliberately and intentionally failed and refused to do so, the order shows that the court had no proper predicate for such finding. This contention is based upon the fact that the order shows that the court based its finding, a least in part, on argument of [Wife’s] counsel and petitioner’s failure to appear at the contempt hearing.
Petitioner cites as authority for his position the case of Ratner v. Ratner, Fla. App.1974, 297 So. 2d 344. His reliance thereon is misplaced. The Ratner case stands for the proposition that a contempt order for refusing to obey a prior order of the court must be based on an affirmative finding that it is within the power of defendant to obey the order, and such finding must be made to appear on the face of the order of commitment. The contempt order in this case fully complies in that regard. It is dear that what petitioner is now seeking to do is to attack the correctness of that specific finding of ability to pay. This he should have done by timely appeal. He cannot now use habeas corpus as a substitute for appeal. See 15 Fla.Jur., Ha-beas Corpus, Section 20. "Since the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County had jurisdiction over petitioner, and the contempt order is valid on its face, the petition should be and hereby is denied. 15 Fla.Jur., Ha-beas Corpus, Sections 70 et seq.
Petition denied.
CROSS and MAGER, JJ., concur.