Neiman v. NASEER

• Decision Date: 16 April 2010
• Docket Number: No. 4D09-4325.,4D09-4325.
• Citation: 31 So.3d 231
• Parties: Brian NEIMAN, Appellant, v. Farhan NASEER, individually, Kashif Shaukat, individually, Sona Patel, individually, and The Formula Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

31 So.3d 231

Brian NEIMAN, Appellant, v. Farhan NASEER, individually, Kashif Shaukat, individually, Sona Patel, individually, and The Formula Inc., a Florida corporation, Appellees.

No. 4D09-4325.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 17, 2010.

Rehearing Denied April 16, 2010.

Bart A. Houston of Genovese Joblove & Battista, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

John C. Dotterrer, Vincent Green, Jenny Torres, and Stephen J. Giovinco, of John C. Dotterrer Counsellors at Law, P.A., Palm Beach, for appellee Farhan Naseer.

LEVINE, J.

The issue presented is whether the trial court's contempt order failed to provide appellant with the required specific information necessary to purge the contempt. We find that part of the trial court's order failed to provide appellant the "key" to his potential incarceration, while the remaining part properly gave appellant sufficient detail to purge the finding of contempt.

The trial court entered a final judgment in a civil dispute against appellant in the amount of $530,000. After entry of the judgment, appellee Naseer requested the trial court in September 2008 to direct appellant to be examined concerning appellant's property, as Naseer's judgment remained unsatisfied. The court ordered appellant to appear before a special magistrate. The proceedings were stayed at the request of appellant due to a medical condition, which allegedly prohibited him from traveling, and the fact he was residing in Panama. Appellant was again ordered to appear for examination in January 2009 and again appellant filed a motion for protective order.

Naseer filed a motion for entry of an order to show cause why appellant should not be held in contempt for failure to appear for examination, claiming appellant had been traveling outside of Panama during the relevant time period. During a hearing in July 2009, Naseer presented evidence corroborating his claim of appellant's travels. Additionally, Naseer also presented evidence that appellant admitted in electronic communications to having $7.2 million in assets. The court ordered appellant to appear at a hearing in September 2009 to determine if he violated the prior court orders requiring him to appear for examination.

Appellant once again failed to appear at the September hearing, and the trial court entered the civil contempt order that is the basis of this appeal. The order found that appellant's failure to appear for examination was a willful violation of the trial court's order of July 14, 2009. The order included a "coercive" fine of $2,000 per day from the date of the contempt order until the day appellant appears in person for examination. The trial court made a finding of appellant's ability to pay based on the evidence in the record. The trial court also found appellant liable for Naseer's attorney's fees for the examinations and hearings that appellant failed to attend. The trial court stated that appellant "will remain liable" for attorney's fees and "all coercive fines" listed, even after appellant purges himself of the contempt by appearing for and testifying at the examination.

At the end of the order finding civil contempt, there is a second part in which the trial court additionally stated the following:

Mr. Neiman is also found to be in contempt of this Court's July 14, 2009 Order requiring him to personally appear and show cause. For this violation, the Court ORDERS that a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Neiman be issued forthwith. Mr. Neiman shall be incarcerated until such time as he appears before this Court in compliance with the July 14, 2009 Order to show cause and appears for and fully and satisfactorily completes a duly scheduled and noticed proceedings supplementary examination before and at the offices of Special Magistrate Portley and fully pays all fines and attorneys' fees and costs then accrued pursuant to this contempt Order. Mr. Neiman may purge his contempt and end his incarceration upon his full compliance with all terms of this and any other then outstanding Orders of this Court.

From this contempt order, appellant appeals.

Appellant claims that the purge provision in the contempt order is defective because it fails to inform the contemnor of the exact dollar amount needed to purge the contempt. Appellant also claims that the order fails to state with specificity the outstanding orders that needed to be complied with in order to purge the contempt.

"A judgment of...