Gratz v. State
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5465
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Gratz appeals after indirect criminal contempt adjudication and a 90-day jail sentence.
- Case arises from post-judgment dissolution of Loretta Gratz v. Gratz with Gratz's child support arrears.
- 2007: court finds arrears exceed $26,000 and orders repayment at $114.56/month.
- 2010: Loretta's verified motion alleges >$24,000 in past-due support and Gratz's allegedly available funds (GEICO $10,000) were used for legal fees.
- June 15, 2010: show-cause order directing appearance on Aug. 12, 2010; appointment of public defender announced but not communicated to Gratz until Aug. 10.
- Aug. 12, 2010: continuance granted but with limited dates; Aug. 16 contempt hearing held; defense seeks further continuance; court denies and Gratz is found in willful contempt; sentence imposed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of a continuance was an abuse of discretion | Gratz | Gratz | Yes; denial was an abuse of discretion |
| Whether six days’ notice to defense counsel violated due process/right to counsel | Gratz | Gratz | Yes; six days insufficient for preparation |
| Whether the defense was improperly denied discovery/compulsory process rights | Gratz | Gratz | Not reached; due to limited ruling on continuance; right to process not satisfied |
| Whether willfulness of conduct could be established beyond a reasonable doubt given limited process | Loretta | Gratz | Willfulness requires adequate opportunity to present defense; rejected due to continuance denial |
| Whether the court’s failure to allow a full hearing affected the validity of the contempt finding | Loretta | Gratz | Yes; proceeding incompatible with due process; reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Berlow v. Berlow, 21 So.3d 81 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (strict compliance with 3.840 necessary in indirect contempt; reversible error otherwise)
- Baumgartner v. Joughin, 105 Fla. 335 (1932) (due process requires opportunity to meet charges; right to counsel and witnesses)
- Wells v. State, 654 So.2d 146 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995) (willfulness element in criminal contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (1911) (due process in contempt prosecutions; proof of willfulness)
- Parisi v. Broward Cnty., 769 So.2d 359 (Fla. 2000) (willfulness standard in contempt; burdens of proof)