Reder v. Miller
102 So. 3d 742
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Civil dispute over ownership and possession of Redhawk Bend property; Estate, represented by Christine Miller, is in de facto possession for years.
- Reder represents the record title holder; trial court issued three orders relevant to possession and injunctions in Sept.–Oct. 2011.
- Order Sept. 21, 2011 denied Reder’s writ of possession; Sept. 30, 2011 granted Estate’s temporary injunction; Oct. 11, 2011 amended injunction partially denying Reder’s motion to dissolve the Sept. 30 injunction.
- Contempt findings rested on two acts by Reder: entering the property on Sept. 27, 2011 and changing the electric billing address to his office.
- The appellate court held none of these acts violated the plain language of the three orders; contempt based on intent rather than letter of the orders was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reder’s acts violated the plain terms of the orders | Reder violated the orders by entering the property and altering billing/address per the injunctions' aims. | There was no explicit prohibition in the orders against those acts; no violation of the letters of the orders. | No violation of the orders' text; contempt reversed. |
| Whether contempt can be based on the court's alleged intent behind orders | Intent of the orders supported contempt for actions undermining possession and injunctions. | Contempt must rest on explicit written commands, not inferred intent. | Contempt cannot be based on implied intent; reversed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Paul v. Johnson, 604 So.2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992) (contempt requires clear, precise language in orders)
- Osmo Tec SACV Co. v. Crane Envtl., Inc., 884 So.2d 324 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (contempt sanctions require acts clearly contravene injunctions)
- Northstar Invs. & Dev., Inc. v. Pobaco, Inc., 691 So.2d 565 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (strict compliance required for contempt)
- Cooley v. Moody, 884 So.2d 143 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (court must be explicit and precise in commands)
- Minda v. Ponce, 918 So.2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (cannot base contempt on unexpressed intent)
- DeMello v. Buckman, 914 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (reversal warranted when contempt based on intent rather than letter of order)
- Keitel v. Keitel, 716 So.2d 842 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (contempt requires violations of the text of the order)