Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Family Law Procedure

Are a judge’s contempt powers limitless in a Florida family law case? The short answer is no. As cited in a recent appellate opinion, “[p]unishment for contempt of court is allowed to be imposed, not to satisfy an offended judge, but to vindicate the authority and dignity of the judicial office; and the penalty should have reference to the nature and enormity of the act complained of and to the wrong done to the court.” Hason v. Hason, 2D22-1396 (Fla. 2d DCA August 18, 2023).

In this case, the parties entered a marital settlement agreement in which the former husband agreed to make certain support payments to the wife including alimony and child support. Shortly after the final judgment was entered, the former wife filed a motion for contempt and enforcement against the former husband alleging non-payment of support. The wife’s motion for contempt was denied, but the motion for enforcement was granted, and the former husband was ordered to make all payments for support via the State Disbursement Unit, instead of directly to the former wife. The order was clear that any payments made outside of the disbursement unit and to the wife directly would not be counted as his support payment.

The former wife later filed another motion for contempt, alleging the former husband had not made full payment. She acknowledged receipt of partial payment in the amount of about $55,000 from the former husband directly. The court found the former husband in contempt of its mandate to pay the support through the disbursement unit. It ordered him to repay $33,000 in support payments through the disbursement unit as a purge amount and found he had the ability to pay. It also did not give him credit for any of the direct payments to the former wife. The former husband appealed.

The appellate court first noted the history of the inherent power of the court to punish contempt: “More recently, in Dietz v. Bouldin, 579 U.S. 40, 45 (2016), the Court stated that while it had not precisely determined the outer boundaries of a court's inherent powers, ‘the Court has recognized certain limits on those powers.’ The Court looked to two principles to define those limits. ‘First, the exercise of an inherent power must be a 'reasonable response to the problems and needs' confronting the court's fair administration of justice.’ Id. (quoting Degen v. United States, 517 U.S. 820, 823-24 (1996)). And second, ‘the exercise of an inherent power cannot be contrary to any express grant of or limitation on the . . . court's power contained in a rule or statute.’ Id. Thus, ‘an inherent power must be a reasonable response to a specific problem and the power cannot contradict any express rule or statute.’ Id. at 46.”

The appellate court turned to the facts of this case and acknowledged that while the trial court correctly held the former husband in contempt for failing to make payments via the disbursement unit as ordered, the punishment did not fit the “crime”. The court held “Here, the remedy fashioned by the circuit court to address the Former Husband's failure to pay through the Disbursement Unit is concerning. The fair administration of justice is exceeded when the circuit court ignores the historical fact of payments made and orders an additional sum of a like amount to be paid in penalty. The circuit court's order imposing repayment of child support and alimony obligations in these circumstances does not suggest a ‘reasonable response’ to the problem.” However because the former husband failed to preserve his case for appeal, the court reluctantly affirmed, commenting “Were we permitted to roam this judicial ground we would conclude that the order on appeal exceeds the power afforded by the inherent authority of the trial court.”

Schedule your meeting with a Miami family law attorney to determine how the law may apply to the facts of your case.