Koepke v. Koepke
275 So. 3d 1278
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2019Background
- Former Husband (an attorney) and Former Wife disputed unpaid alimony after dissolution; Wife sought discovery of Husband's anticipated PI settlement and attorneys' fees to satisfy arrears.
- Husband settled the PI case and concealed both the settlement and his fees from Wife, producing false or misleading discovery responses and failing to comply with a subpoena duces tecum.
- Husband diverted a substantial portion of awarded attorneys' fees into an irrevocable trust to shield assets from alimony enforcement, affecting the court's ability-to-pay analysis.
- Wife obtained an order to show cause for indirect criminal contempt; the order was served via the Florida e-Portal to attorneys of record (including Husband), who appeared and litigated the contempt hearing.
- The trial court found Husband guilty of indirect criminal contempt for willful deception and obstruction; it issued sanctions. Husband appealed, raising (1) improper service under Fla. R. Crim. P. 3.840(a) and (2) insufficient evidence of willfulness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Former Wife) | Defendant's Argument (Former Husband) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of the order to show cause complied with Rule 3.840 | Service via e-Portal to attorneys of record satisfied service; Husband received actual notice and participated | Lack of personal/sheriff service rendered proceedings fundamentally defective under Rule 3.840 | Court AFFIRMED: e-Portal service under Rule 2.516 was adequate where Husband (a litigant and attorney) received notice and litigated the matter; no reversible fundamental error |
| Whether evidence established willful conduct for indirect criminal contempt | Husband intentionally misled discovery, ignored subpoena, and diverted fees to avoid alimony — willful obstruction of justice | Actions were not willful or sufficient to support criminal contempt | Court AFFIRMED: record amply supports findings of intentional, willful deception and diversion; contempt affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida Department of Children & Families, 970 So. 2d 438 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (reversal where order to show cause was not personally served)
- Giles v. Renew, 639 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (discussing service method for show-cause orders in domestic relations context)
- Sylvester v. State, 923 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (failure to follow Rule 3.840 constitutes fundamental error)
- Van Hare v. Van Hare, 870 So. 2d 125 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (reversing contempt order for noncompliance with Rule 3.840)
- D.H. v. Adept Community Services, Inc., 271 So. 3d 870 (Fla. 2018) (definition of fundamental error as those going to the foundation or merits of the case)
- Hagan v. State, 853 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003) (failure to strictly follow Rule 3.840 is fundamental, reversible error)