Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

710 So. 2d 981

Parisi v. Broward County

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 27, 1997

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1997-08-27

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently July 2000

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“that the contemnor had the ability to comply with the underlying order that required some type of action.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 769 So. 2d 359 - Parisi v. Broward County

Relies on Florida Bar Re Amendment to Article XI, Florida Bar Integration Rule (Rules of Discipline) · Johnson v. Bednar · 433 So. 2d 1033 - Florida Coast Bank of Pompano Beach v. Mayes

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1997-08-27

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1We affirm the trial court’s civil contempt order on appeal. To ensure compliance with its previous orders enjoining environmental hazards, the trial court entered an order within the parameters of Johnson v. Bednar, 573 So.2d 822 (Fla.1991). The order required appellant to post a bond to secure performance of certain remedial measures on the property. In the event that appellant failed to perform, the county could apply to the court for release of the bond so it could arrange to perform the necessary corrective measures.

¶2Appellant relies on Florida Coast Bank of Pompano Beach v. Mayes, 433 So.2d 1033 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983), review dismissed, 453 So.2d 43 (Fla.1984), to argue that the order is deficient for the failure of the court to include a finding that appellant had the financial ability to post the bond. Mayesindicates that prior to imposing contempt sanctions, the trial court must find that the contemnor had the ability to comply with the underlying order that required some type of action. Here, the record reflects that the orders violated were the previous injunctive orders of the court, including the civil contempt order entered on June 1, 1993. The trial court specifically found that appellant had the ability to comply with those orders. Appellant’s ability to post the bond would become relevant in a motion for contempt for the failure to post it, where the county seeks the imposition of a fine under Johnsonor of a purge-able jail sentence.

¶3We find no error as to the other points raised.

¶4AFFIRMED.

WARNER, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

¶5ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

¶6The motion for rehearing is denied.

¶7SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

¶8WARNER, J., dissents with opinion.

/710/so2d/981 · .json · Public domain