Gregory v. Rice, 92,471.
Decision Date | 11 February 1999 |
Docket Number | No. 92,471.,92,471. |
Parties | Anthony GREGORY, Petitioner, v. Everett RICE, Sheriff of Pinellas County, Florida, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Bob Dillinger, Public Defender, and Keri Kepp, Assistant Public Defender, Sixth Judicial Circuit, Clearwater, Florida, for Petitioner.
Joseph R. Boyd and William H. Branch of Boyd, Lindsey, Williams & Branch, P.A., Tallahassee, Florida, and Chriss Walker, Department of Revenue, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Tallahassee, Florida, for Respondent.
This case involves the wrongful incarceration of a father who failed to pay child support payments. The father, Anthony Gregory, was sentenced to ninety days in jail with a $200 purge provision even though the unrefuted record in this proceeding reflects that he had no money and no assets other than the clothes he was wearing; that he had only recently been released from jail for this same offense; and that he had obtained employment just two days before the hearing. He was released from jail in this case only after this Court directed the State to file a response to his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. On the same date the Department of Revenue filed its response, it requested the trial court to release Gregory "in the interests of justice." In its response, the Department of Revenue moved to dismiss this cause as moot based on Gregory's release.
Originally, upon being notified that Gregory had been released, we dismissed this action as moot. On motion for rehearing, Gregory asserted that we should accept this case to address several issues raised in the petition because the issues are of great public importance, are commonly involved in these types of proceedings, and are very likely to recur.1 Those issues concern the handling of contempt proceedings in matters presented to the court by Department of Revenue personnel and heard by child support enforcement hearing officers. We find we should accept jurisdiction. Accordingly, by this opinion we vacate our prior order dismissing this cause.
The relevant facts of this case are as follows. Gregory was incarcerated from August to October, 1997, for failure to pay child support. On the day before he was released, he was served with a notice of hearing for failure to pay child support. In January 1998, Gregory appeared as directed before Angela Hoogeven, a child support enforcement hearing officer, on a motion for contempt filed by the Department of Revenue. At the hearing, it was determined that Gregory owed $7,218 in child support arrearages. Gregory testified that he had just started working again (he had worked for only two days) and was expecting a paycheck of $55; he also testified that he had no cash or other assets other than his clothing. After this testimony was presented, the hearing officer found that Gregory "ha[d] been or was employed for six months," even though there was nothing in the record to support this finding, and found Gregory to be in contempt for failure to pay support. In the recommended order, the hearing officer sentenced Gregory to jail for ninety days with a $200 purge amount.
A portion of the transcript of the above proceedings is unavailable because the tape recording of part of the proceedings was misplaced. Nevertheless, it appears that Gregory was incarcerated without a proper determination that he had the present ability to purge. According to allegations in the petition, the routine process for handling cases of this type in Pinellas County is as follows: Four respondents are called before two hearing officers and are duly sworn; each is then addressed separately; after inquiry, those who are taken into custody are instructed to have a seat and wait for their court orders; the hearing officer's assistant then takes the order down the hall and obtains a judge's signature on the order; the assistant then returns with the executed orders; and the hearing officers formally adjudicate and sentence the respondents.2
In his petition, Gregory contends that the civil contempt proceeding that led to his incarceration was actually criminal in nature because (1) no proper finding was made that he had the ability to purge the contempt prior to his incarceration and (2) the trial court failed to properly review the recommendations of the hearing officer as required by Florida Family Law Rule 12.491.3 We recently adopted new Florida Family Law Rule 12.615 to specify the procedure that must be followed in civil contempt proceedings in family law cases. The law in this area has not changed recently; however, cases such as this one reflect that confusion still exists as to the process to be followed. As a result, we found it necessary to adopt a specific rule to provide detailed guidance in this area. In adopting the rule, we stated:
.
. Only if the fine is compensatory is it appropriate to dispense with a purge provision. Id. Thus, Bagwell effectively overruled our conclusion in Bednar that a purge provision is required only when incarceration is ordered.
In re Amendments to the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure, 723 So.2d 208, 213, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S573, S576 (Fla.1998). As our decision in Amendments makes clear, the court must evaluate the evidence and determine whether the alleged contemnor (1) has the present ability to pay the support and (2) has willfully refused to do so.4 The problem at issue here, however, involves not only a proper determination as to whether the alleged contemnor has the present ability to pay but also the proper procedure to be followed when a hearing officer, rather than an article V5 judge, hears evidence and makes recommendations to the court regarding the disposition of child support enforcement proceedings.
Child support hearing officers are empowered to "issue process, administer oaths, require the production of documents, and conduct hearings for the purpose of taking evidence." Fla. Fam. L.R. 12.491(e). Among other things, a hearing officer is to Fla. Fam. L.R. 12.491(e)(4). After the court receives a recommended order, the court is to review the recommendation and is to enter an order promptly absent good cause to do...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Banks v. Jones
...destroy our jurisdiction when the question before us is of great public importance or is likely to recur.") (citing Gregory v. Rice, 727 So.2d 251, 252 n.1 (Fla. 1999) ); N.W. v. State, 767 So.2d 446, 447 n.2 (Fla. 2000) (retaining discretionary certified conflict jurisdiction after the app......
-
Parisi v. Broward County
...and sets the parameters for the sanctions that can be imposed. Bagwell, 512 U.S. at 830-31, 114 S.Ct. 2552; see also Gregory v. Rice, 727 So.2d 251, 253 (Fla.1999) (quoting In re Amendments to Fla. Family Law Rules of Procedure, 723 So.2d 208, 213 (Fla.1998)). Because criminal contempt is "......
-
Weiss v. Weiss
...filing of reports, additional fines, the delivery of certain assets, the revocation of a driver's license’ ”) (quoting Gregory v. Rice, 727 So.2d 251, 254 (Fla.1999)). Thus, it is not for us to speculate about the remedies the trial court may employ if the Former Husband does not pay as ord......
-
State v. Matthews
...see also Tormey v. Moore, 824 So.2d 137 (Fla.2002); Enter. Leasing Co. v. Jones, 789 So.2d 964, 965-66 (Fla.2001); Gregory v. Rice, 727 So.2d 251, 252 n. 1 (Fla.1999) (citing Dugger v. Grant, 610 So.2d 428, 429 n. 1 (Fla.1992)). Moreover, this Court elects to proceed because the problem tha......
-
Alternatives to physical and testimonial proof
...the ability to pay, the initial order creates a presumption in subsequent proceedings that there is an ability to pay. Gregory v. Rice , 727 So.2d 251 (Fla. 1999). Burden on defaulting party. Although the initial judicial determination creates in a subsequent proceeding a presumption there ......
-
Florida family law rules of procedure
...the review, absent exceptions, is adequate and satisfies spirit of the law. Llyod v. Lloyd , 54 So.2d 679 (Fla. 1951); Gregory v. Rice, 727 So.2d 251 (Fla. 1999). Wix v. Wix Trial court erred when it adopted magistrate’s report that failed to consider the former husband’s 401(k) account as ......
-
Title procedure before general magistrates and child support enforcement hearing officers.
...Feuer, 22 So. 2d 641, 642 (1945). (45) In re Family Law Rules of Procedure, 663 So. 2d 1049, 1051-52 (Fla. 1995). (46) Gregory v. Rice, 727 So. 2d 251, 254-55 (Fla. 1999); FLA. R. FAM. P. (47) FLA. R. FAM. P. 12.490(f). (48) FLA. STAT. [section] 63.65 (1949). (49) FLA. R. JUV. P. 8.257(f). ......
-
Chapter 15-2 Courts' Inherent Authority to Sanction
...County, 769 So. 2d 359, 363-64 (Fla. 2000).[20] Parisi v. Broward County, 769 So. 2d 359, 365 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Gregory v. Rice, 727 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1999)).[21] Parisi v. Broward County, 769 So. 2d 359, 365 (Fla. 2000) (quoting Gregory v. Rice, 727 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1999)).[22] Ross Dres......