Randall v. Griffin
204 So. 3d 965
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- In 2010 the trial court ordered Willie Carl Griffin Jr. to pay child support of $59.32/week to Marthell Randall.
- In May 2015 Randall moved for civil contempt/enforcement, seeking compliance, DOR collection, and an employment-search requirement if Griffin was unemployed.
- A July 2015 hearing before a judicial hearing officer resulted in a recommendation granting Randall’s motion but the recommendation and the adopted final order contained no enforcement mechanisms or factual findings supporting contempt.
- Randall served a motion for rehearing by mail within 15 days of the final order; the motion did not reach the clerk’s office timely and the hearing officer and trial court refused to consider it as untimely.
- The Fifth DCA held that because Randall’s motion was timely served under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(b), the trial court’s refusal to consider it denied due process and remanded for consideration of enforcement provisions and required factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Randall’s motion for rehearing was timely and required consideration | Randall: motion was served by mail within 15 days under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530(b); court must consider it | Court/hearing officer: motion untimely because it did not reach clerk in time | Held: Service date controls; motion was timely served and the court’s refusal to consider it denied due process — reversal and remand |
| Whether the contempt order must include enforcement mechanisms and factual findings | Randall: requested enforcement provisions (DOR collection, employment efforts) and factual findings supporting contempt | Griffin: did not appear/respond at hearing; no argument preserved below on rehearing denial | Held: Trial court may, but is not required to, craft enforcement mechanisms; on remand court must consider enforcement options and must set forth findings of fact and reasons when entering amended contempt order |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell v. State, 289 So. 2d 388 (longstanding rule that issues not argued are deemed abandoned absent jurisdictional or fundamental error)
- O’Brien v. Fla. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Ass’n, 710 So. 2d 51 (fundamental error in civil cases must be equivalent to denial of due process)
- Mordenti v. State, 630 So. 2d 1080 (due-process standard for fundamental error)
- Migliore v. Migliore, 717 So. 2d 1077 (service date controls timeliness under Rule 1.530)
- JPMorgan Chase Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Bigley, 120 So. 3d 1265 (if motion is timely, court should consider its merits)
- Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (after finding civil contempt, court must determine appropriate alternatives to obtain compliance)
- Ocr-EDS, Inc. v. S & S Enters., Inc., 32 So. 3d 665 (denying a litigant a right to appeal or review due to clerk’s error raises due-process concerns)