Rickard v. Bornscheuer

937 So. 2d 311, 2006 Fla. App. LEXIS 15503, 2006 WL 2683205
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided September 20, 2006·No. No. 4D05-4602·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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

937 So. 2d 311 (Rickard v. Bornscheuer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

WANDA I. RUFIN, P.A. v. ALICIA MARIA BORGA
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2020
GREGORY M. OCHALEK v. ANTONIO RIVERA and JOCELYNE GOMEZ
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2017
Assimenios v. Assimenios
153 So. 3d 345 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2014)