Rickard v. Bornscheuer

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rickard v. Bornscheuer

937 So. 2d 311, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 15503, 2006 WL 2683205

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 20, 2006

DocketNo. 4D05-4602

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 937 So. 2d 311 (Rickard v. Bornscheuer) 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

Rickard v. Bornscheuer, 937 So. 2d 311, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 15503, 2006 WL 2683205 (Fla. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

BATEMAN, THOMAS H„ III, Associate Judge.

Attorney Mark W. Rickard timely appeals an October 18, 2005 final order entering sanctions against him personally in the sum of $750.00.

Under the facts of this case, we find that the trial court erred in imposing personal sanctions against Rickard. In this case, Rickard was not given adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses or other evidence in the case against him. See Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So.2d 221 (Fla.2002) (while a trial court has the inherent authority to impose sanctions in the form of attorney’s fee against an attorney for bad faith conduct, the authority carries with it the obligation to use restraint as guided by the circumstances and degree of the alleged bad conduct and to provide due process in the form of notice and an opportunity to be heard-including the opportunity to present witnesses and other evidence). Moreover, the trial court’s order does not make any factual findings nor does it state the basis for the award of personal sanctions against Rickard. Therefore, we reverse.

Reversed.

STEVENSON, C.J., and STONE, J., concur.

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

BATEMAN, THOMAS H„ III, Associate Judge.

Attorney Mark W. Rickard timely appeals an October 18, 2005 final order entering sanctions against him personally in the sum of $750.00.

Under the facts of this case, we find that the trial court erred in imposing personal sanctions against Rickard. In this case, Rickard was not given adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses or other evidence in the case against him. See Moakley v. Smallwood, 826 So.2d 221 (Fla.2002) (while a trial court has the inherent authority to impose sanctions in the form of attorney’s fee against an attorney for bad faith conduct, the authority carries with it the obligation to use restraint as guided by the circumstances and degree of the alleged bad conduct and to provide due process in the form of notice and an opportunity to be heard-including the opportunity to present witnesses and other evidence). Moreover, the trial court’s order does not make any factual findings nor does it state the basis for the award of personal sanctions against Rickard. Therefore, we reverse.

Reversed.

STEVENSON, C.J., and STONE, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

937 So. 2d 311, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 15503, 2006 WL 2683205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rickard-v-bornscheuer-fladistctapp-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack