Creative Choice Homes, Ii, Ltd. v. Keystone Guard Servs., Inc., No. 3D13–2770.

CourtCourt of Appeal of Florida (US)
Writing for the CourtROTHENBERG
Citation137 So.3d 1144
PartiesCREATIVE CHOICE HOMES, II, LTD., etc., Appellant, v. KEYSTONE GUARD SERVICES, INC., Appellee.
Docket NumberNo. 3D13–2770.
Decision Date02 April 2014

137 So.3d 1144

CREATIVE CHOICE HOMES, II, LTD., etc., Appellant,
v.
KEYSTONE GUARD SERVICES, INC., Appellee.

No. 3D13–2770.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,
Third District.

April 2, 2014.


[137 So.3d 1145]


Clyatt & Richardson, P.A., and Kevin F. Richardson (West Palm Beach), for appellant.

Carmela D. Jackson Law, P.A., and Carmela D. Jackson, for appellee.


Before ROTHENBERG, SALTER, and EMAS, JJ.

ROTHENBERG, J.

Creative Choice Homes, II, Ltd. (“Creative Choice”), the defendant below, appeals an order finding Creative Choice in contempt and imposing sanctions for its failure to file a fact information sheet (“FIS”) as the court ordered in the final judgment. Based on the facts of the case and the nature of the sanctions, we find that the trial court abused its discretion and accordingly reverse the contempt order and remand with instructions.

Keystone Guard Services, Inc. (“Keystone”), the plaintiff below, was awarded a $312,725.50 final judgment in March 2009. The final judgment required Creative Choice to file a completed FIS, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure Form 1.977(b), which requires the disclosure of various financial information to make the judgment more easily enforceable, within 45 days of the order. Some five months later, Creative Choice had not complied with the requirement to file its FIS. The trial court, upon Keystone's ex parte motion, entered an order compelling Creative Choice to complete and file the FIS on August 27, 2013. The order compelling the completion of the FIS stated that Creative Choice must complete the FIS and deliver it to Keystone's attorney within ten days of the order and warned that a failure to comply would result in Creative Choice being held in contempt of court.

Before the ten days had expired, Creative Choice filed a motion to stay execution of the final judgment and for relief from the order compelling production of the FIS, arguing that a pending related case filed by Creative Choice against Keystone would likely result in an offset in the judgment, and executing the judgment and completing the FIS at that juncture would

[137 So.3d 1146]

be premature. Shortly thereafter, Keystone filed its motion for an order of contempt and for sanctions because the ten-day period in the order to compel completion of the FIS had expired. The trial court set both motions to be heard on September 17, 2013, but rescheduled the motions to be heard the following week because Creative Choice's counsel had a conflict. On the morning of the rescheduled hearing, Creative Choice's counsel got stuck in traffic on the way to the courthouse, and the trial court considered both motions with only Keystone's counsel present. The trial court denied Creative Choice's motion to stay and granted Keystone's motion for sanctions.

The order imposing sanctions found that: (1) Creative Choice was in contempt of court; (2) Creative Choice would be fined $2,500 per day from the date of the order until it delivered the completed FIS to Keystone's attorney and filed a notice of compliance with the trial court; (3) Creative Choice must pay $450 in attorney's fees to cover Keystone's costs on the contempt order; (4) Creative Choice must pay all attorney's fees and fines imposed, as well as deliver the completed FIS to purge the contempt and stop the fines; and (5) if Creative Choice did not purge the contempt order within 30 days, a writ of bodily attachment would be issued for the principals of the company.

Creative Choice appeals the order granting Keystone's motion for sanctions, arguing that the sanctions imposed, although civil in name, are criminal in nature and do not comply with the prerequisites necessary to impose criminal sanctions. Creative Choice also contends that even if the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • Children's Home Soc'y of Fla. v. K.W., No. 3D20-0569
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 13, 2021
    ...; see also Winton v. Saffer, 158 So. 3d 703, 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ; Creative Choice Homes, II, Ltd. v. Keystone Guard Servs., Inc., 137 So. 3d 1144, 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). As such, the lower court departed from the essential requirements of the law in finding that CHS had (and now has) ......
  • People Tech Grp., Inc. v. Sys. Soft Techs., LLC, No. 2D14–3787.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 1, 2015
    ...abused its discretion or departed from the essential requirements of law.”Creative Choice Homes, II, Ltd. v. Keystone Guard Servs., Inc., 137 So.3d 1144, 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). “Contempt is an intentional offense against the authority of the court or a judge performing his judicial duties......
  • Orban v. Rorrer, No. 3D18-1618
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 14, 2019
    ...(2) compensatory civil sanctions, and (3) coercive civil sanctions. Creative Choice Homes, II, Ltd. v. Keystone Guard Servs., Inc., 137 So. 3d 1144, 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). "The key distinction between criminal and civil contempt is that criminal contempt is punitive in nature and imposes ......
  • State v. Miranda, Nos. 3D12–269
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 2, 2014
    ...by the trial court or if he again violates the conditions of his release. Reversed and remanded with instructions. WELLS, J., concurs. [137 So.3d 1144]SHEPHERD, C.J., concurring partially, and dissenting partially. I concur in Parts I, II and III of the majority opinion. An evidentiary hear......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • Children's Home Soc'y of Fla. v. K.W., No. 3D20-0569
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • January 13, 2021
    ...; see also Winton v. Saffer, 158 So. 3d 703, 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) ; Creative Choice Homes, II, Ltd. v. Keystone Guard Servs., Inc., 137 So. 3d 1144, 1148 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). As such, the lower court departed from the essential requirements of the law in finding that CHS had (and now has) ......
  • People Tech Grp., Inc. v. Sys. Soft Techs., LLC, No. 2D14–3787.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 1, 2015
    ...abused its discretion or departed from the essential requirements of law.”Creative Choice Homes, II, Ltd. v. Keystone Guard Servs., Inc., 137 So.3d 1144, 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). “Contempt is an intentional offense against the authority of the court or a judge performing his judicial duties......
  • Orban v. Rorrer, No. 3D18-1618
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • August 14, 2019
    ...(2) compensatory civil sanctions, and (3) coercive civil sanctions. Creative Choice Homes, II, Ltd. v. Keystone Guard Servs., Inc., 137 So. 3d 1144, 1146 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014). "The key distinction between criminal and civil contempt is that criminal contempt is punitive in nature and imposes ......
  • State v. Miranda, Nos. 3D12–269
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Florida (US)
    • April 2, 2014
    ...by the trial court or if he again violates the conditions of his release. Reversed and remanded with instructions. WELLS, J., concurs. [137 So.3d 1144]SHEPHERD, C.J., concurring partially, and dissenting partially. I concur in Parts I, II and III of the majority opinion. An evidentiary hear......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT