CITY OF PARKER, FLORIDA, A FLORIDA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, APPELLANT,
v.
PAUL E. PANEK AND CAROLYN F. PANEK, APPELLEES
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 court reversed the trial court's denial of the City's contempt motion, holding that the final judgment clearly ordered removal of an encroaching structure despite the trial court's finding that the judgment language was insufficient to support contempt.
A final judgment that clearly and unambiguously orders removal of an encroaching structure provides sufficient basis for civil contempt when the defendant fails to comply, even if the judgment language alone appears unclear without reference to pleadings and stipulations.
[1] A trial court's determination that judgment language is insufficient to support civil contempt is reversible error when the judgment, read in conjunction with pleadings a…
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 intelligenceThe City of Parker obtained a judgment quieting title to Alford Street in its favor. The Paneks own a house located in the street's right of way and w…
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 Final Judgment Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, City of Parker, challenges a non-final order denying its motion for contempt. The City was successful, in an earlier proceeding, in quieting title in its favor to a street in Bay County known as Alford Street. The appellees, who own a house that, pursuant to their prior stipulations of fact, is located in the right of way, were directed to remove any encroachment on or obstruction to Alford Street within ninety days of the date of the final judgment. The judgment was subsequently affirmed by this Court. Panek v. City of Parker, 827 So. 2d 983 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).
Thereafter, asserting that the appellees had not complied with the lower court’s directive, the City filed a motion seeking to have the appellees held in civil contempt. Following a hearing on the issue, the trial court denied the motion for contempt, finding that a review of the injunctions in the final judgment showed that the language in the judgment was insufficient to predicate a finding of contempt. Because the final judgment, when reviewed in light of the pleadings and stipulations submitted in the earlier proceedings, clearly and unambiguously reveals that the appellees were ordered by the final judgment to remove the encroaching structure, the trial court erred in denying relief due to its belief that the final judgment was -unclear in this regard. Accordingly, we REVERSE the order insofar as it denies the City’s motion for contempt. We AFFIRM in all other respects.
BOOTH, BARFIELD and ALLEN, JJ., concur.