ANTHONY PARKS, APPELLANT,
v.
WELLS FARGO HOME MORTGAGE, APPELLEE

Fla. 4th DCA | 2016-01-06
No. 4D14-1470
TAYLOR, DAMOORGIAN and . LEVINE, JJ., concur.
185 So. 3d 541 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (2016) Positive Treatment
Cited by 2 cases

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.


Holding

The court held that a contempt order that is a hybrid between civil and criminal contempt, lacking a purge provision and due process protections, is illegal.


Headnotes

[1] A contempt order that fails to contain a purge provision prior to an incarcerative sanction is fatally flawed as a civil contempt order.

[2] A contempt order that fails to comport with due process protections afforded criminal defendants, including the right to counsel and procedural requirements of Rule 3.840…

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

Facts & Procedural History

Anthony Parks appealed a circuit court order finding him in contempt and sentencing him to jail. The order was a continuation of an earlier contempt f…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

CORRECTED OPINION

PER CURIAM.

Anthony Parks appeals a circuit court order that found that he remained in contempt of an earlier contempt order and sentenced him to thirty days in jail with an opportunity to purge only after he completed that sentence. The sentence was to be served consecutively to another sentence Parks- was serving in Miami-Dade County. We reverse and remand for the reasons below.

Parks was previously held in contempt in this cause, and the order on appeal was’ a continuation of that process. We recognize case authority supporting dismissal of appeals where appellants have been held in contempt of court of trial court orders. See Viacao Aerea Sao Paulo, S.A. v. Pegasus Aviation, Inc., 904 So.2d 631 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Davidson v. Dist. Court of Appeal, Fourth Dist., 501 So.2d 603 (Fla.1987). However, we exercise our discretion not to dismiss the appeal in this instance because Parks is appealing the very contempt order last issued against him.

The order being appealed appears to be a hybrid between a civil and an indirect criminal contempt order and, thus, is illegal. If regarded as a civil contempt order, it is fatally flawed for failure to contain a purge provision prior to the in-carcerative sanction. Parisi v. Broward County, 769 So.2d 359 (Fla.2000); Alves v. Barnett Mort. Co., 688 So.2d 459, 460 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Absent a purge provision, a contempt order can be regarded as a criminal contempt order. If regarded as a criminal contempt order, it is flawed for failure to comport with the due process protections afforded criminal defendants, including the right to be represented by counsel, and the procedural requirements of Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840. Jones v. Ryan, 967 So.2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). The record does not demonstrate that these, rights were extended to Parks.

We reverse and remand with instructions for the trial .court to vacate the contempt order and jail.sanctions.

Reversed and Remanded.

TAYLOR, DAMOORGIAN and . LEVINE, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Decius v. Decius (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
  • Decius v. Decius (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
    …a. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii) (2023) (“in family law matters: a. the Langbert was the basis for our later decisions to find that pre-judgment contempt orders were reviewable under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C). E.g., Parks v. Wells Fargo Home Mortg., 185 So. 3d 541, 542 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016); Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Morgan, 445 So. 2d 678, 680 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Yet, as time passed, we began to express doubts as to the jurisdictional basis to review these nonfinal orders under Rule 9.130(a)(3)(C). See Calicchio v…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw