Opinion
No. 3D20-475
07-22-2020
Ernesto SOSA, Appellant, v. Ines PORTILLA, Appellee.
Neil Rose (Hollywood), for appellant. De La Peña Group, P.A., and Leoncio E. De La Peña D., for appellee.
Neil Rose (Hollywood), for appellant.
De La Peña Group, P.A., and Leoncio E. De La Peña D., for appellee.
Before LOGUE, LINDSEY, and HENDON, JJ.
LOGUE, J.
Ernesto Sosa appeals the trial court's order denying his Motion to Release his U.S. and Venezuelan Passports. Because we agree with Sosa that his passports were withheld as part of a civil contempt order, and the civil contempt order failed to include a purge provision, we reverse.
This case has its origins in the litigation surrounding the divorce of Ernesto Sosa (the "former husband") and Ines Portilla (the "former wife"). After a number of non-appearances by the former husband, the trial court ultimately entered an order to show cause, and when the former husband again failed to appear, a writ of bodily attachment to remain in effect until he surrendered his passports. The former husband duly surrendered his passports, but also filed a motion to quash the writ or set a reasonable purge provision. Among other things, he argued that the order to show cause was never properly served on him. The trial court agreed. It vacated the order to show cause and dissolved the writ.
Nevertheless, it ordered that the former husband's "passports shall remain in the custody of the Clerk of Courts until further notice." The order contained no purge provision. The former husband then moved for release of his passports on the basis that the order did not contain a purge provision, which motion the trial court denied in an unelaborated order. The former husband timely appealed.
The purpose of civil contempt is to obtain compliance with a court order. For this reason, civil contempt requires a purge provision, whereby the sanction stops as soon as the party purges itself of contempt by complying with the order. Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1277 (Fla. 1985) ("We continue to adhere to the view that incarceration for civil contempt cannot be imposed absent a finding by the trial court that the contemnor has the present ability to purge himself of contempt."); Carmenates v. Hernandez, 127 So. 3d 631, 633 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ("AG civil contempt order must contain a specific purge provision that adequately informs the contemnor what he or she must do to purge the contempt."); Douglas v. Douglas, 485 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986) ("the contempt order must contain a purge provision by which the contemner may be automatically relieved of the contempt finding and released from confinement upon compliance with the order to pay."). The absence of such a purge provision in the trial court's civil contempt order was error.
Reversed and remanded.