Florida Family Court Discusses Fines In Florida Family Law Cases

Florida family law courts tend to wield significant power to enforce compliance with parenting plans and court orders. That power, however, has limits. This is especially true when it comes to fines and attorney fees imposed through contempt. The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s 2024 decision in Burlinson v. Wilson is a clear reminder that judges must stay within the boundaries of their statutory authority when sanctioning a litigant for disobedience.

In Burlinson, a parent was found in indirect criminal contempt for violating a timesharing agreement order. The parent was fined and ordered to pay the other party’s attorney fees. The appellate court affirmed the finding of contempt but struck down the financial penalties. This case clarified what Florida law actually allows in an emotionally charged case such as this one.

Background of the case 

In this case, the parties shared a parenting plan that governed custody and timesharing. After ongoing disputes between the parents, the trial court found that Burlinson had willfully violated a timesharing order. The court deemed this conduct a direct challenge to its authority. The judge entered an indirect criminal contempt order, punishing Burlinson for past defiance rather than coercing future compliance.

As part of her sentence, Burlinson was placed on probation and ordered to pay two monetary penalties:

• $100 in prosecution costs, and
• $1,983.20 in attorney fees

Burlinson appealed the ruling. She argued that while the court could punish her for contemptuous behavior, it had no legal authority to impose those specific financial penalties. In this case, the Fourth DCA agreed in part. It affirmed the contempt finding but reversed the monetary penalties.

The appellate court’s analysis 

In this case, the appellate court’s opinion drew a sharp line between what a court may punish and how it punishes it in family law contempt cases.

First, the court upheld Burlinson’s conviction for indirect criminal contempt. The evidence appeared to support the notion that she willfully disobeyed a lawful court order. This alone is sufficient basis for contempt.

The appellate judges, however, took issue with the fines. The $100 in prosecution costs was invalid since the State Attorney’s Office had not prosecuted the case. Courts can only assess prosecution costs when the state is involved. In this case, the opposing party’s private attorney had prosecuted the contempt charge. Thus, no such costs could be charged.

The assignment of attorney fees was also improper. The court reaffirmed that indirect criminal contempt is punitive in nature. In other words, it’s a punishment for defying the court. By ordering one party to pay the attorney fees of the other, the trial court had crossed the line separating civil and criminal contempt.

Talk to an Orlando, FL, Divorce Lawyer Today 

Greater Orlando Family Law represents the interests of Orlando residents during their divorce. Call our Orlando family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin discussing your next steps right away.

Source:

caselaw.findlaw.com/court/fl-district-court-of-appeal/116230135.html