Sullivan v. Sullivan
54 So. 3d 520
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Final dissolution judgment required husband to transfer Brady's Plaza to wife within 30 days; transfer occurred on May 28, 2008.
- Husband continued collecting rents from Brady's Plaza and deposited them into a Bay Acquisitions, LLC corporate account.
- Wife sought civil contempt, enforcement, sanctions, and related relief; trial court found husband in contempt for mishandling funds.
- Husband argued trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over Bay Acquisitions, LLC; trial court rejected this and held him in contempt.
- January 5, 2009 order required husband to pay wife $41,160; husband did not seek rehearing or appeal that order.
- Wife filed a subsequent contempt petition; trial court again found husband in contempt for failing to pay under the underlying order; appellate fees procedural issue raised.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bay Acquisitions, LLC could be subject to contempt proceedings | Sullivan contends lack of jurisdiction over Bay Acquisitions, LLC. | Bay Acquisitions is a separate entity; control arguments negate personal jurisdiction. | Trial court had jurisdiction; contempt affirmed. |
| Whether appellate attorney's fees are warranted under section 57.105 | Appeal defenses lacked merit; fees justified. | No merit argued; but challenge to jurisdiction not frivolous. | Appellate attorney's fees awarded to wife; remanded for fee determination. |
| Whether the contemnor’s objections to the prior contempt order were timely | Objections waived due to no timely appeal. | Maintain challenge to jurisdiction on appeal. | Objections waived; no meritorious challenge to the prior order. |
Key Cases Cited
- Long v. AvMed, Inc., 14 So. 3d 1264 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (test for §57.105 fees based on merit of claim)
- M.G. v. State, 711 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (timing of merit analysis for sanctions)
- Gil v. Mendelson, 870 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003) (trial court inherent jurisdiction to enforce orders)
- Hoskin v. Hoskin, 349 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977) (court retains power to enforce final dissolution provisions)
- Plank v. Arban, 241 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970) (equity may disregard corporate veil for fraud or injustice)
- Wendy's of N.E. Fla., Inc. v. Vandergriff, 865 So. 2d 520 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (merit-based approach to sanctions under §57.105)
- Boca Burger, Inc. v. Forum, 912 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2005) (appellate sanctions principles for frivolous proceedings)