Baldwin v. Baldwin
204 So. 3d 565
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Robert Baldwin Jr. (Former Husband) and Jacqueline Baldwin (Former Wife) litigated dissolution of marriage; court bifurcated/trifurcated various issues and ultimately entered a final equitable distribution order now on appeal.
- At the July 1, 2015 trial on dissolution, the court suspected Former Husband had not complied with a pretrial mandatory financial disclosure order.
- The court immediately held a show-cause hearing the same day, found Former Husband in indirect civil contempt, jailed him, and entered an order allowing purge by filing a detailed, accurate financial affidavit.
- Former Husband promptly complied, filed the required affidavit, and was released from custody the next day; a later contempt proceeding resulted in four days in custody before purge and release.
- On appeal Former Husband challenged (1) the July 1, 2015 contempt order (no prior notice/time to prepare) and (2) a later contempt order (insufficient notice), and also challenged the equitable distribution order.
Issues
| Issue | Baldwin's Argument | Baldwin's (Wife) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the July 1, 2015 summary contempt proceeding violated due process by providing no notice/time to prepare | Trial court erred; no notice denied due process | Court proceeded summarily due to perceived nondisclosure | Vacated July 1, 2015 contempt order for lack of due process; remand to vacate |
| Whether the subsequent contempt order (two days' notice, immediate custody) was infirm for insufficient notice | Argued insufficient notice for contempt hearing | Court provided two days' notice and proceeded | Affirmed second contempt order (issue not argued on that ground; two days insufficient per precedent but not raised) |
| Whether final equitable distribution order was erroneous | Claimed errors in distribution | No appearance/arguments from appellee in record | Affirmed final equitable distribution order |
Key Cases Cited
- Saul v. Basse, 399 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (appeal of final order includes review of interlocutory orders leading to it)
- DeHoff v. Imeson, 15 So. 2d 258 (Fla. 1943) (mootness doctrine explained)
- Godwin v. State, 593 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 1992) (exceptions to mootness when issues likely to recur)
- Holly v. Auld, 450 So. 2d 217 (Fla. 1984) (mootness and appellate consideration of recurring issues)
- Dileo v. Dileo, 939 So. 2d 181 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (party must have actual notice and time to prepare for contested hearing)
- Harreld v. Harreld, 682 So. 2d 635 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996) (due process notice requirement in family law contempt proceedings)
- Bresch v. Henderson, 761 So. 2d 449 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000) (civil contempt requires fundamental fairness under Fourteenth Amendment)
- Woolf v. Woolf, 901 So. 2d 905 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (two days' notice insufficient for contempt hearing)