RONALD C. BRUGH AND LORA L. BRUGH, HIS WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
THE SAVINGS AND PROFIT SHARING PENSION FUND OF UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, A FOREIGN CORPORATION, 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.
This case involves a contempt citation against a Circuit Court Clerk for failing to perform his official duties in processing an appeal. The court found the clerk in contempt due to his inexperience and ignorance of appellate rules, imposing a fine and ordering him to complete the appeal record.
Yes, the Clerk of the Circuit Court is held in contempt for his failure to comply with appellate rules and a court order. Ignorance or inexperience does not excuse the failure to perform official duties.
“Having accepted the office he now occupies, respondent has likewise accepted the responsibility for informing himself as to the propey manner in which his official duties must be performed, and he may not seek to avoid the responsibility for failing in the performance of his duties on the ground of inexperience or ignorance.”
Establishes the court's reasoning that ignorance of the law or procedures is not a valid excuse for failing to perform official duties.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Clerk of the Circuit Court failed to transmit the notice of appeal and filing fee to the appellate court, and also failed to prepare and transmit …
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 Official Duties cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the court upon the response to a citation issued to' J. A. Peacock, Jr., as Clerk of the Circuit Court for Calhoun County, Florida, directing him to appear in person before the court and show cause, if any he may, why he should not be adjudged in contempt of the court for failure to perform his official duties in connection with this appeal as prescribed by the Florida Appellate Rules as promulgated by the Supreme Court of this state, and for his failure to comply with the order directed to him and rendered by this court dated December 7, 1967.
Appellant filed his notice of appeal in the office of respondent Peacock as Qerk of the Circuit Court for Calhoun County on July 24, 1967, and at the same time deposited with him the filing fee as required by the rules relating thereto. On August 3, 1967, appellant filed with respondent his written directions for the preparation of the record on appeal, together with directions to the reporter for transcribing her notes of the trial proceeding. Respondent not only failed to forthwith transmit tO’ this court a certified copy of the notice of appeal together with the filing fee deposited with him as required by Rule 3.2, subd. a, F.A.R., 32 F.S.A., but also failed to prepare and transmit to this court the record on appeal as required by Rule 3.6, F.A.R., which record was due to be filed in the office of the clerk of this court on November 11, 1967.
Upon denial of appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal for failure of appellant to comply with the rules relating to' the preparation and filing of a record on appeal, this court rendered its order on December 7, 1967, directing respondent to' forward to this court a certified copy of the notice of appeal and the filing fee deposited with him, and to complete in accordance with appellant’s directions the record on appeal and file it in this court on or before December 14, 1967, or failing which, he was commanded to appear in person before the court and to show cause for his failure so to do. *323A copy of this order was transmitted to respondent by registered mail and received by him on December 8, 1967.
Upon respondent’s failure to comply with the court’s order of December 7, 1967, as mentioned above, or to appear before this court on December 14, 1967, as commanded by the directions contained in said order, this court issued its citation of December 14, 1967, directing respondent to appear before the court and show cause why he should not be adjudged in contempt for his failure to comply with the Florida Appellate Rules and with the lawful order of this court governing the performance of his official duties.
At the hearing held before the court, respondent offered no lawful cause or excuse for his defaults in the premises. He candidly admitted his failure to process this appeal in accordance with the appellate rules applicable thereto, but sought to excuse his dereliction on the ground that he was inexperienced in the processing of appeals and was without knowledge as to how or in what manner his duties in this connection should be performed. Having accepted the office he now occupies, respondent has likewise accepted the responsibility for informing himself as to the propey manner in which his official duties must be performed, and he may not seek to avoid the responsibility for failing in the performance of his duties on the ground of inexperience or ignorance.
Respondent has candidly admitted before the court that he received the registered letter transmitted to him containing this court’s order of December 7, 1967, but states that said registered letter, together with the remainder of the mail received at that time, was handed over to his deputy clerk and he assumed that it would be handled by her in a proper manner; that the envelope containing the order was never opened either by respondent or anyone acting under his supervision until the citation for contempt issued in this cause was served upon him on December 14, 1967. Such an admission on the part of respondent is a confession of gross dereliction in the performance of his official duties, and ignores the rudimentary principles of minimal office procedures.
Although we are of the view that respondent Peacock’s failure to perform his official duties in connection with this appeal was not motivated by any intent to defy this court’s authority or to flagrantly refuse to perform the duties required of him, he is nevertheless in default because of his derelictions hereinabove outlined.
In consideration of the premises the respondent, J. A. Peacock, Jr., is hereby adjudged and held to be in contempt of this court for his failure to comply with the duties and responsibilities imposed upon him in connection with the processing of the appeal in this case as prescribed by the Florida Appellate Rules, and because of his failure to comply with the lawful order of this court in connection therewith rendered on December 7, 1967. It is the judgment of the court that respondent Peacock, for his said offense, be and he is hereby fined the sum of $100.00, together with the costs of this proceeding hereby taxed in the sum of $14.50. It is further ordered that said respondent Peacock do prepare and file in the office of the clerk of this court a proper record on appeal in accordance with directions given him by counsel for the parties herein, and pay the fine and costs hereby imposed upon him all within ten days from the filing of this judgment, in default of which he shall be taken in custody by the Sheriff of Calhoun County and incarcerated in the county jail of that county until he shall purge himself of his contempt by fully complying with the terms and provisions of this judgment.
WIGGINTON, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., RAWLS, JOHNSON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rowe v. Wille, 415 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)…e, 338 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). There must be evidence that the defendant intended to violate the court’s command, or that he was guilty of such gross dereliction that the intent will be presumed. See Brugh v. Savings and Profit Sharing Fund, 205 So. 2d 322 (Fla. 1st DCA 1967). We cannot find such proof in this record. Rowe acknowledged responsibility for supervising the program and admitted that restitution was not made. The record also reflects that Rowe was aware that the court had ordered restitut…
-
Krasnow v. Navarro, 909 F.2d 451 (11th Cir. 1990)…220 (Fla.App.1976); Comment, Contempt of Court in Florida, 9 Miami L.Q. 281, 289-91 (1955). . Wilson v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 353, 141 So. 182, 182 (1932); Rowe v. Wille, 415 So. 2d 79, 81 (Fla.App.1982); Brugh v. Savings & Profit Sharing Pension Fund, 205 So. 2d 322, 323 (Fla.App.1967). . 11 Fla.Jur.2d Contempt § 17 (1979) (citing cases); accord State ex rel. Franks v. Clark, 46 So. 2d 488 (Fla.1950); Baumgartner v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 335, 141 So. 185 (1932); Brugh, note 2; supra, 205 So. 2d at 323.…