All Marine Properties, Inc. v. Thunderboat Factory Outlet, Inc.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

All Marine Properties, Inc. v. Thunderboat Factory Outlet, Inc.

731 So. 2d 98, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4701, 1999 WL 212794

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 14, 1999

DocketNo. 98-2580

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 731 So. 2d 98 (All Marine Properties, Inc. v. Thunderboat Factory Outlet, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

All Marine Properties, Inc. v. Thunderboat Factory Outlet, Inc., 731 So. 2d 98, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4701, 1999 WL 212794 (Fla. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s finding that appellant was in contempt of the temporary injunction. We reverse the assessment of a $10,000 fine, contained in paragraph 2 of the July 17, 1998 contempt order. If the fine was intended as a punitive fine, or one imposed to secure future compliance with the injunction, the trial court failed to consider appellant’s financial resources or “the seriousness of the burden on that particular party.” Johnson v. Bednar, 573 So.2d 822, 824 (Fla.1991), overruled on other grounds, Amend. To Fla. Family Law Rules of Proc., 723 So.2d 208, 213 (Fla.1998). If the fine was intended to compensate the appellee for losses sustained, there was no evidence in the record of the appellee’s actual loss, or of any other method of computation that might have been used to set the fíne. See id. We remand to the trial court to reconsider the fine in light of Johnson.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

DELL, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s finding that appellant was in contempt of the temporary injunction. We reverse the assessment of a $10,000 fine, contained in paragraph 2 of the July 17, 1998 contempt order. If the fine was intended as a punitive fine, or one imposed to secure future compliance with the injunction, the trial court failed to consider appellant’s financial resources or “the seriousness of the burden on that particular party.” Johnson v. Bednar, 573 So.2d 822, 824 (Fla.1991), overruled on other grounds, Amend. To Fla. Family Law Rules of Proc., 723 So.2d 208, 213 (Fla.1998). If the fine was intended to compensate the appellee for losses sustained, there was no evidence in the record of the appellee’s actual loss, or of any other method of computation that might have been used to set the fíne. See id. We remand to the trial court to reconsider the fine in light of Johnson.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded.

DELL, SHAHOOD and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

731 So. 2d 98, 1999 Fla. App. LEXIS 4701, 1999 WL 212794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/all-marine-properties-inc-v-thunderboat-factory-outlet-inc-fladistctapp-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack