Sauriol v. Sauriol
79 So. 3d 204
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2012Background
- In August 2008 Jennifer Sauriol filed for protection against domestic violence alleging her husband assaulted her and earlier violence occurred.
- The final injunction entered in September 2008 barred violence and contained a no-contact provision, allegedly excluding business discussions, though the record lacks appended terms.
- In April 2009 Jennifer moved for order to show cause citing five emails from Sauriol (Sept 2008–Feb 2009); emails were brief and non-threatening and addressed business and property issues.
- The trial court issued an order to show cause for contempt; Florida Rule 3.840 procedures for indirect criminal contempt were not pursued.
- August 2009 hearing occurred via telephone from Canada; court minutes indicate dissolution and remarriage of Jennifer (now Stringer) but no transcript; court initially threatened criminal contempt, then held civil contempt for a single email.
- The final contempt order sentenced Sauriol to 21 days in jail with a purge of $500 and enrollment in a batterer’s intervention program; court gave one year to comply; record lacked evidence of evidence or evidence of comparable program in Canada.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Civil vs. criminal contempt distinction | Sauriol argues contempt was civil, aimed at compliance. | Sauriol contends proceedings were criminal in nature. | Reversed; order was not a proper civil contempt order. |
| Validity of the 21-day jail term and purge | Purported punishment without clear compensatory or coercive purpose. | Sanction intended to coerce compliance. | Reversed; the sanction was improper and punitive. |
| Sufficiency of record to support contempt finding | Emails allegedly violated injunction; no ongoing contumacy. | Evidence showed violation of injunction. | Remanded for proper civil contempt evaluation with adequate record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Parisi v. Broward Cnty., 769 So.2d 359 (Fla. 2000) (distinguishes criminal vs. civil contempt by purpose and remedy)
- Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla. 1985) (criminal contempt punishes; civil contempt is remedial for the movant)
- Johnson v. Bednar, 573 So.2d 822 (Fla. 1991) (fines may be used in civil contempt for compensation or coercion)
- Int’l Union, United Mine Workers v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (U.S. 1994) (distinction between civil and criminal contempt tied to coercive vs. punitive aims)
- Gompers v. Buck’s Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (U.S. 1911) (early articulation of civil vs. criminal contempt distinctions)