noting that a trial court may assess “a ‘compensatory fine’ to be paid by the wrongdoing party to the party injured” when a “violation of the [equitable] decree has resulted in damages to the injured party”
How later courts described this case
- noting that a trial court may assess “a ‘compensatory fine’ to be paid by the wrongdoing party to the party injured” when a “violation of the [equitable] decree has resulted in damages to the injured party”
- “Furthermore, in order for an argument to be cognizable on appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground for the objection, exception, or motion below.”
- noting a trial court’s “unquestioned authority to order a civil contempt fine to compensate for losses sustained,” which is to “be based on evidence of the injured party’s actual loss” (internal quotation and citation omitted)
- regarding a civil-contempt order, “where an error by the court appears for the first time on the face of a final order, a party must alert the court of the error via a motion for rehearing or some other appropriate motion in order to preserve it for appeal”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA
_____________________________
No. 1D2023-0144
_____________________________
CAROLYN KOWALSKI n/k/a
CAROLYN MCCORMICK,
Appellant,
v.
JANIS E. BROWN and TERENCE
M. BROWN,
Appellees.
_____________________________
On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.
Susanne Wilson Bullard, Judge.
July 10, 2024
PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. See Parisi v. Broward Cnty., 769 So. 2d 359, 366
(Fla. 2000) (noting a trial court’s “unquestioned authority to order
a civil contempt fine to compensate for losses sustained,” which is
to “be based on evidence of the injured party’s actual loss” (internal
quotation and citation omitted)); S. Dade Farms, Inc. v. Peters, 88
So. 2d 891, 899 (Fla. 1956) (noting that a trial court may assess “a
‘compensatory fine’ to be paid by the wrongdoing party to the party
injured” when a “violation of the [equitable] decree has resulted in
damages to the injured party”); see also Applegate v. Barnett Bank
of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1979) (noting that “[i]n
appellate proceedings the decision of a trial court has the
presumption of correctness and the burden is on the appellant to
demonstrate error,” so the order on review should be affirmed
where “the record brought forward by the appellant is inadequate
to demonstrate reversible error”); Williams v. Williams, 152 So. 3d
702, 704 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014) (regarding a civil-contempt order,
“where an error by the court appears for the first time on the face
of a final order, a party must alert the court of the error via a
motion for rehearing or some other appropriate motion in order to
preserve it for appeal”); cf. Coolen v. State, 696 So. 2d 738, 742 n.2
(Fla. 1997) (observing that “failure to fully brief and argue these
points constitutes a waiver of these claims”); Duest v. Dugger, 555
So. 2d 849, 852 (Fla. 1990) (“The purpose of an appellate brief is to
present arguments in support of the points on appeal. Merely
making reference to arguments below without further elucidation
does not suffice to preserve issues, and these claims are deemed to
have been waived.”); Steinhorst v. State, 412 So. 2d 332, 338 (Fla.
1982) (“Furthermore, in order for an argument to be cognizable on
appeal, it must be the specific contention asserted as legal ground
for the objection, exception, or motion below.”).
B.L. THOMAS, M.K. THOMAS, and TANENBAUM, JJ., concur.
_____________________________
Not final until disposition of any timely and
authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
9.331.
_____________________________
Carolyn McCormick, pro se, Petitioner.
Charles Daniel Sikes, Charles Daniel Sikes, P.A., Starke, for
Respondent, Janis E. Brown.
No appearance for Respondent, Terence M. Brown.