Honig v. Cigna Insurance Co.

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Honig v. Cigna Insurance Co.

687 So. 2d 922, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 350, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 313

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 31, 1997

DocketNo. 95-04014

StatusPublished

This text of 687 So. 2d 922 (Honig v. Cigna Insurance Co.) 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

Honig v. Cigna Insurance Co., 687 So. 2d 922, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 350, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 313 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Seymour L. Honig appeals an order finding him in contempt. Honig contends that [923]*923the contempt order should be vacated as the trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830. We agree.

The order imposes no sanctions and does not indicate the type of contempt. Our review of the record reveals that if the offending conduct were to constitute contempt, it would be direct criminal contempt. After being told he was in contempt of court, Hon-ig was not afforded an opportunity to present evidence of excuse or mitigation. Further, the trial court did not make sufficient findings of fact to support a judgment of direct criminal contempt.

Therefore, we reverse and vacate the order finding Honig in contempt.

FULMER, A.C.J., WHATLEY, J., and DAEAN, STEPHEN L., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Seymour L. Honig appeals an order finding him in contempt. Honig contends that [923]*923the contempt order should be vacated as the trial court failed to comply with Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.830. We agree.

The order imposes no sanctions and does not indicate the type of contempt. Our review of the record reveals that if the offending conduct were to constitute contempt, it would be direct criminal contempt. After being told he was in contempt of court, Hon-ig was not afforded an opportunity to present evidence of excuse or mitigation. Further, the trial court did not make sufficient findings of fact to support a judgment of direct criminal contempt.

Therefore, we reverse and vacate the order finding Honig in contempt.

FULMER, A.C.J., WHATLEY, J., and DAEAN, STEPHEN L., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

687 So. 2d 922, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 350, 22 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 313, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/honig-v-cigna-insurance-co-fladistctapp-1997.