order of contempt on an injunction that violates Florida law

[jasminer]

What is the name of your state? Florida
My former wife sued me and the trial court entered an injunction regarding a small property I have. The injunction does not provide the details of that property in the injunction but only provides a reference to a document containing the details of the property. The injunction violates Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.610(c), which say that every injunction shall describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained without reference to a pleading or another document. Therefore, I did not take any action based on the injunction. The court held me in contempt and I lost rehearing also (judge is taking this personal as he is the one who entered the injunction). I filed an appeal. I am on indigent status.

I am gathering material to prepare my initial brief to file with the appeals court. Is there any law says that (a) it is legal error (or de novo) for a court to hold someone on contempt based on an injunction which itself is violating Florida law (i.e., Fla.R.Civ.P) or (b) trial court should not enforce an injunction that itself is violating the law.
Any information is helpful.

 

[LdiJ]

What is the name of your state? Florida
My former wife sued me and the trial court entered an injunction regarding a small property I have. The injunction does not provide the details of that property in the injunction but only provides a reference to a document containing the details of the property. The injunction violates Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.610(c), which say that every injunction shall describe in reasonable detail the act or acts restrained without reference to a pleading or another document. Therefore, I did not take any action based on the injunction. The court held me in contempt and I lost rehearing also (judge is taking this personal as he is the one who entered the injunction). I filed an appeal. I am on indigent status.

I am gathering material to prepare my initial brief to file with the appeals court. Is there any law says that (a) it is legal error (or de novo) for a court to hold someone on contempt based on an injunction which itself is violating Florida law (i.e., Fla.R.Civ.P) or (b) trial court should not enforce an injunction that itself is violating the law.
Any information is helpful.

You do realize that even if the appeals court overturns this its going to be remanded back to the trial court and the judge will just rewrite the injunction and hold you in contempt anyway?

 

[jasminer]

Appreciate. The injunction was entered several months ago. My concern is not on what if the lower court rewrites but on the case law I requested earlier.

 

[Zigner]

Does the injunction read along the lines of "The property at 12345 Anystreet, as more fully described in document xyz"?

 

[Whoops2u]

1. The injunction has been in effect for months. While it is not impossible for it to still be preliminary or temporary, are you sure it was not issued after a full hearing on the merits and is a permanent or final injunction? If so, then the statute would not be applicable.

2. If a temporary injunction, search for the statute on google scholar. You'll find a number of cases on it. You'll also find the relevant items that need to be included in the finding without reference to outside documents are:

1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; 2) lack of an adequate remedy at law; 3) irreparable harm absent the entry of an injunction; and 4) injunctive relief will serve the public interest. (Liberty Counsel v. Florida Bar Bd. of Governors, 12 So. 3d 183, n.7 (Fla. 2009) )

Which element do you think is missing the "clear, definite, and unequivocally sufficient factual finding" because of the reference to other documents in regards to your property?

 

[jasminer]

Appreciate.
The injunction is the final and permanent and the appeal time is over long back. In my earlier posting, I did not provide all the details as I thought it would be enough and also because it was/is a very complex legal case. Let me give more details (I afraid, my former wife is reading this forum)

Essentially, the property address is not directly provided in the injunction but says that it is there at a webpage (I and my wife had a webpage for selling some vegetables online in the past and that webpage is still up and running by my former wife) and the internet address, such as abcd.com, of that webpage is provided in the injunction.

The injunction also instructed me to shred and dispose all documents, in that property I have, which contain “false information about my former wife”. However, no details are provided in the injunction on what information is qualified as “false information about my wife”. I believe all the information in the documents is true and she believes all of it is false and the court never judged on that.

 

[Zigner]

As you say, your time for appeal is long past. Furthermore, stop playing games...

 

[jasminer]

It seems there is some confusion on my side.
The time for appeal on the injunction is long passed but what I am appealing is the judgment of contempt (of that injunction) and the whole issue is about that.

 

[Zigner]

It seems there is some confusion on my side.
The time for appeal on the injunction is long passed but what I am appealing is the judgment of contempt (of that injunction) and the whole issue is about that.

The injunction stands, you would have had to appeal its applicability then.

 

[jasminer]

Appreciate. So, even if a permanent injunction itself is violating law, unless it is timely appealed, it can be enforced after that!

 

[Zigner]

Appreciate. So, even if a permanent injunction itself is violating law, unless it is timely appealed, it can be enforced after that!

You saying that it violates the law does not make it so.

 

[Whoops2u]

Appreciate. So, even if a permanent injunction itself is violating law, unless it is timely appealed, it can be enforced after that!

Which law do you claim the injunction violated? The one you quoted applies to temporary injunctions.

 

[not2cleverRed]

Appreciate.
The injunction is the final and permanent and the appeal time is over long back. In my earlier posting, I did not provide all the details as I thought it would be enough and also because it was/is a very complex legal case. Let me give more details (I afraid, my former wife is reading this forum)

Essentially, the property address is not directly provided in the injunction but says that it is there at a webpage (I and my wife had a webpage for selling some vegetables online in the past and that webpage is still up and running by my former wife) and the internet address, such as abcd.com, of that webpage is provided in the injunction.

The injunction also instructed me to shred and dispose all documents, in that property I have, which contain “false information about my former wife”. However, no details are provided in the injunction on what information is qualified as “false information about my wife”. I believe all the information in the documents is true and she believes all of it is false and the court never judged on that.

I think you have a good idea of what "information" that your wife and/or a judge would find offensive.

However, if the issue was that you were unclear as to what was expected of you, then the reasonable thing to do would be to ask for clarification of the court order. If you appear to be making an honest attempt at abiding by a court order, you are less likely to be found in contempt.

 

[jasminer]

Which law do you claim the injunction violated? The one you quoted applies to temporary injunctions.

It seems to me that Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.610(c) is NOT just for temporary injunction.

 

[jasminer]

I think you have a good idea of what "information" that your wife and/or a judge would find offensive.

However, if the issue was that you were unclear as to what was expected of you, then the reasonable thing to do would be to ask for clarification of the court order. If you appear to be making an honest attempt at abiding by a court order, you are less likely to be found in contempt.

If the injunction is unclear then a person should not be held in contempt based on that and the law is very clear on that.