STELLA RYLANDER, APPELLANT,
v.
BENNY TESCHOUVA, 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.
A hybrid 'bonded fine' sanction containing both compensatory and coercive elements is an invalid coercive civil contempt sanction.
[1] A hybrid "bonded fine" containing both compensatory and coercive elements is an invalid coercive civil contempt sanction.
[2] A compensatory contempt fine must be directly paid to the aggrieved party to compensate for damages suffered.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA landlord was found in contempt for violating an injunction that restored possession of retail premises to a tenant. The trial court imposed a hybrid…
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 Coercive Civil Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Stella Rylander appeals from an order of contempt entered against her. We reverse.
Benny Teschouva, as tenant, sued Stella Rylander, as landlord, seeking a writ of possession, injunctive relief, and damages for Rylander’s locking him out of his retail premises. The trial court ordered Rylan-der to restore possession to Teschouva, and to refrain from interfering with his possession.1
Upon further proceedings, the trial court found it necessary to enter an order of contempt against Rylander for violating the terms of the injunction. Relying on Parisi v. Broward County, 769 So. 2d 359 (Fla.2000), the court imposed a hybrid “bonded fine” sanction against Rylander that contained both compensatory and co ercive elements. The court fashioned the compensatory contempt element by imposing a $1,400.00 fine against Rylander for interfering with Tesehouva’s business. The trial court correctly related the amount of the sanction to damages actually suffered by Teschouva as a result of Ry-lander’s conduct, and considered Rylan-der’s financial capacity to pay. However, misunderstanding Parisi, the trial court then imposed a coercive contempt element, suspending the fine pending Rylander’s future compliance with the court’s prior orders. To insure the availability of the $1,400.00 fine and to secure Rylander’s future compliance, the court ordered Ry-lander to pay the fine into the court registry.
The Florida Supreme Court in Parisi, however held that a hybrid “bonded fine” is an invalid coercive civil contempt sanction, concluding that it should not be utilized by trial courts. Parisi at 366, 367. We therefore reverse the order of contempt and direct the trial court to order Rylander to pay the $1,400.00 as a pure compensatory fine directly to Teschouva.
Reversed and remanded with directions.
. In Rylander's earlier appeal, this court affirmed the trial court’s order restoring possession and ordering injunctive relief. Rylander v. Teschouva, 864 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montello v. Montello, 937 So. 2d 1154 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…comply. However, an indirect criminal contempt and a civil contempt serve two distinct functions. See Parisi v. Broward County, 769 So. 2d 359, 364-65 (Fla.2000). The hybrid order now before us cannot stand. See id. at 365-67; Rylander v. Teschouva, 877 So. 2d 7, 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004). Because the incidents leading up to the contempt order occurred several years ago, no useful purpose would be served by remanding for a new contempt hearing. Accordingly we vacate the contempt order. The former husband appeal…
Authorities Cited
- Parisi v. Broward Cnty., 769 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 2000)
- Rylander v. Benny Teschouva, 864 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003)
- Leon J. Abram, M.D. & Leon J. Abram, M.D., P.A. v. Wolicki, 864 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)