Parris v. Silveira and Parris
Case No. 4D11-3006

Angelica Parris gave birth to a child while married to Joseph Parris. Angelica later filed for divorce, representing in her petition for dissolution that there were no minor children of the marriage. The trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. Silveira later filed a paternity action pertaining to the child Angelica had given birth to while still married to Joseph Parris. The trial court dismissed the paternity action based upon the presumption of Joseph Parris’ paternity during the marriage. The trial court later discovered Angelica’s representation in the dissolution of marriage action that there were no children of her marriage to Joseph Parris. The trial court vacated its previous order dismissing the paternity action. The court held a contempt hearing and found Angelica in contempt for her false representations in both cases. The court ordered that Angelica could purge the contempt by arranging for a DNA test to determine the child’s paternity.

In a written opinion, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (“DCA”) held that the trial court erred in finding Angelica in civil contempt. The Fourth DCA stressed that civil contempt is a coercive sanction that is used to compel compliance with a court order. Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1277 (Fla. 1985). Although Angelica may have previously lied, she could not properly be held in civil contempt because she was under no court order to perform any act. The Fourth DCA reversed.

City of Riviera Beach v. State of Florida
Case No. 4D10-4522

The office of the state attorney subpoenaed information from the City of Riviera Beach that included the names of confidential informants the City had used. The trial court ordered the City to comply with the subpoena. The City filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the court of appeal seeking to quash the order. The Fourth DCA held that no privilege for confidential informants protected the information the state attorney requested in the subpoena. Additionally, the Fourth DCA held that the state attorney’s investigative subpoena did not implicate the right to privacy under Article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution. The Fourth DCA noted that both the City and the state attorney are required by statute to keep the information confidential. The Fourth DCA therefore determined that there was no departure from the essential requirements of law, denied the City’s petition, and held the state attorney was entitled to the names of the confidential informants under section 27.04, Florida Statutes (2010).

S.L. v. Department of Children & Families
Case No. 4D11-3844

The trial court rendered an order terminating a mother’s parental rights to her minor child, S.A. S.A., whose father was serving a long sentence of incarceration, was residing with his half-siblings (the mother’s other children) and their father. The Department had sought to terminate both of S.A.’s parents’ rights to him in order to give S.A. permanency. However, the Department had not moved to terminate the mother’s rights to her children that were living with their father. The mother, S.L., appealed, arguing that the trial court’s finding that termination was the least restrictive means of protecting S.A. was not supported by competent substantial evidence. Specifically, the mother argued that termination was not the least restrictive means where the trial court did not also terminate her parental rights to her other children. In support, the mother relied upon In re G.R., 793 So. 2d 988 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).

In a written opinion, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (“DCA”) distinguished S.L.’s factual circumstances from those present in In re G.R. The Fourth DCA noted that the facts of S.L.’s case were completely different. Unlike the mother in In re G.R., S.L. had made no progress on her case plan, had not seen S.A. more than a year, and resided out of state. The Fourth DCA therefore affirmed, concluding that the trial court had correctly applied the least restrictive means test as to S.A. individually.

Canterbury Apartments, Inc. v. Sokol,
Case No. 10-21735 CACE (26); L.T. Case No. 09-7287 COCE (53)

We represented the tenants of a unit of a co-operative apartment building. Prior to our involvement in the case, the apartment building management filed suit against our clients alleging five separate violations of the lease, corporation by-laws, and rules and regulations. The apartment management sought to remove our clients from the apartment and terminate our clients’ certificate of ownership. The trial court granted final summary judgment in favor of our clients based on the court’s finding that the allegations, even accepted as true, did not constitute a persistent violation of the governing documents that would entitle the apartments to remove our clients and terminate their certificate of ownership. The apartment management appealed.

On appeal, we defended the trial court’s finding that the governing documents simply did not allow the apartments to remove our clients and terminate their certificate of ownership for the violations alleged. Specifically, we argued that the requirement in the governing documents that the violations be “persistent” barred the apartment management’s relief here where none of the five different alleged violations was repeated. The Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, sitting in its appellate capacity, agreed. The court affirmed the final summary judgment for our client and granted our motion for appellate attorney’s fees.