A 2025 Florida appellate decision, Prichard v. Galicia, provides a critical and timely analysis of a trial court’s power to enforce its own orders. The case, which was an ongoing dissolution of marriage action, addressed the severe sanctions a court can impose when a party willfully fails to comply with court orders for financial discovery and temporary support. The trial court, faced with a party’s non-compliance, found the individual in civil contempt and imposed a $1,000 per day coercive fine until he complied.
On appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal quashed (voided) this sanction. The appellate court’s ruling did not excuse the party’s non-compliance. Instead, it reversed the fine on a crucial, and often misunderstood, legal principle: a judge’s power to issue a coercive fine is not unlimited. The appellate court held that before imposing such a severe, open-ended financial sanction, the trial judge must first make a specific finding that the party has the financial ability to pay the fine itself. Because the trial court in Prichard failed to make this mandatory finding, its $1,000-per-day fine was deemed a “departure from the essential requirements of the law.”
This case is a vital read for any individual navigating the divorce process in Tampa. It provides a stark warning about the serious consequences of ignoring court orders while simultaneously reinforcing the strict procedural safeguards that limit a court’s power. It highlights the complex, high-stakes nature of contempt and enforcement proceedings, an area where the guidance of an experienced Tampa divorce lawyer is indispensable.
The Power of the Court: Contempt and Enforcement in a Tampa Divorce
A final judgment or a temporary order in a Florida divorce is not an optional suggestion. It is a binding, legal directive from a Circuit Court Judge. Unfortunately, in many high-conflict dissolution cases in Hillsborough County, one party may choose to ignore their court-ordered obligations.
This non-compliance can take many forms:
- Failure to pay court-ordered child support or temporary alimony.
- Failure to produce mandatory financial discovery, such as financial affidavits, bank statements, or tax returns.
- Refusal to honor a timesharing schedule.
- Failure to sell a marital home or sign a deed as required by a final judgment.
When this occurs, the aggrieved party’s remedy is to file a Motion for Contempt and Enforcement. This is the primary legal tool a Tampa divorce lawyer uses to force the non-compliant party (the “contemnor”) to follow the court’s order. The Prichard case demonstrates exactly what happens in this scenario. The petitioner, Mr. Prichard, had violated two separate “agreed-to” court orders, failing to provide his financial discovery and failing to pay temporary support. The trial court’s response was to find him in civil contempt.
Civil Contempt vs. Criminal Contempt
It is essential to understand the nature of the proceeding in the Prichard case. This was a civil contempt action, not a criminal one. The distinction is critical:
- Criminal Contempt: This is a punitive proceeding. Its goal is to punish a person for a past act of willful defiance that insulted the dignity of the court. The sanction is a fixed, finite punishment, such as a specific jail sentence or a one-time fine.
- Civil Contempt: This is a coercive proceeding. Its goal is not to punish, but to compel a party to perform an act they are refusing to perform (e.g., “pay the support you owe,” or “produce the documents you are hiding”). The sanctions are designed to motivate compliance.
The “keys to the jail” is the classic example of a civil contempt sanction. A judge finds a party in contempt for owing $10,000 in support and sentences them to jail, but provides a “purge” amount (e.g., $5,000). The contemnor is not serving a “sentence”; they are being held until they choose to use the “key” (the $5,000) to let themselves out. This is a coercive tool.
The Prichard case involved the other major coercive tool: the per diem fine.
The Coercive Fine: A Tool of Last Resort
Instead of incarceration, a trial judge in Tampa has the discretion to impose a coercive daily fine. This is what the Prichard trial court did, ordering a $1,000-per-day fine that would continue to accumulate every single day until Mr. Prichard complied with the discovery and support orders.
The purpose of this fine is to make non-compliance financially unbearable. The judge is creating a situation where it is far more painful and expensive for the party to continue defying the court than it is to simply comply. In theory, this is a perfectly acceptable and powerful coercive sanction.
However, the Florida Supreme Court, in a case called Parisi v. Broward County, established the critical legal limit on this power, a limit that the Prichard trial court violated.
The Parisi Test: A Fine Must Be Coercive, Not Punitive
The Prichard appellate court, citing Parisi, explained that a trial court’s discretion in setting the amount of a fine is notunlimited. For a fine to be truly “coercive” rather than “punitive,” it must be a fine that the person is actually capable of paying.
This distinction is the core of the Prichard ruling.
- A Truly Coercive Fine: Imagine a person with $1 million in the bank who refuses to sign a document. A $1,000-per-day fine is coercive. It is painful, and it will motivate them to sign the document, but they have the financial ability to pay it if they choose to remain defiant.
- A Punitive Fine in Disguise: Now, imagine a person who makes $4,000 per month and refuses to sign the same document. A $1,000-per-day fine ($30,000 per month) is not coercive. It is an impossible, catastrophic debt that the person has no ability to pay. It is not a “key” to compliance; it is a “punishment” that is legally impermissible in a civil contempt proceeding.
Therefore, the Florida Supreme Court and the Prichard court have ruled that a trial judge must “consider the amount of [the contemnor’s] financial resources and the consequent seriousness of the burden to that particular [contemnor].”
A Tampa divorce lawyer defending against a motion for contempt and fines has a duty to present evidence of their client’s inability to pay such a fine. Conversely, a Tampa divorce lawyer seeking such a fine must be prepared to present evidence of the other side’s financial resources to justify the amount requested.
The Fatal Flaw in the Prichard Order
The trial court in Prichard failed this mandatory test. The appellate court reviewed both the written Contempt Order and the hearing transcript and found that there was no evidence that the trial court had considered Mr. Prichard’s ability to pay a $1,000 daily fine. The judge, likely frustrated with Prichard’s willful non-compliance, simply picked a number that sounded severe.
This failure to make the necessary finding—that Prichard had the financial resources to withstand a $30,000-per-month fine—was a “departure from the essential requirements of the law.” It was a violation of established legal procedure, and it required the appellate court to quash the fine.
This case is a critical reminder that even when a party is clearly in the wrong (as Mr. Prichard was for violating twoagreed-upon orders), they are still entitled to the full procedural protections of the law. A judge’s power to sanction, while vast, is not absolute.
The Root of the Contempt: Failure to Provide Financial Discovery
The Prichard case is not just about a fine; it is about why the fine was imposed. One of the violations was a failure to provide financial discovery and an updated financial affidavit. This is one of the most serious and damaging acts of non-compliance a party can commit in a Tampa divorce.
The entire Florida divorce system is built on a foundation of mandatory financial disclosure. The law requires both parties to exchange a full, complete, and truthful set of financial documents, including:
- A Financial Affidavit (Form 12.902)
- Tax Returns
- Pay Stubs
- Bank Statements
- Credit Card Statements
- Retirement Account Statements
Without this information, a fair and legal outcome is impossible. A court cannot equitably divide assets it does not know exist. A court cannot set accurate child support if it does not know a party’s true income. A Tampa divorce lawyer cannot advise their client on a fair settlement if the other side is hiding their financial records.
This is why trial judges in Hillsborough County have so little patience for discovery violations. A party’s refusal to produce their financial documents is not a “clever strategy”; it is a direct act of defiance against the entire legal process.
The Sanctions for Discovery Violations
When a party, like Mr. Prichard, refuses to comply with discovery orders, a Tampa divorce lawyer will immediately file a Motion to Compel, followed by a Motion for Contempt/Sanctions. The judge’s “toolbox” is deep, and the coercive fine is only one option. Other common sanctions include:
- Attorney’s Fees (The Most Common): The court will almost always order the non-compliant party to pay 100% of the other side’s attorney’s fees and costs incurred in having to file the motion to force compliance.
- Imputing Income: If a party refuses to disclose their income, the court is permitted to assume they are hiding something. A judge can “impute” an income to that party based on their past work history, lifestyle, or even evidence from the other party. This imputed figure is often much higher than the party’s actual income.
- Striking Pleadings (The “Nuclear Option”): In extreme cases of willful and repeated defiance, a judge can strikethe non-compliant party’s pleadings. This means their petition or counter-petition is thrown out. They can be barred from asking for alimony, from seeking equitable distribution, or from challenging the other side’s requests.
- Coercive Fines: As seen in Prichard, the court can impose a fine. This case simply clarifies that this fine must be relative to the party’s ability to pay.
The fact that Mr. Prichard had violated an “agreed order” on discovery makes his non-compliance even more egregious. He had, through counsel or on his own, agreed to a deadline, which was then ratified by the court. His subsequent failure was a willful breach of a promise made not only to the opposing party but to the court itself. This level of bad faith is what triggers such severe, though in this case procedurally flawed, sanctions.
The High-Stakes Nature of “Certiorari” Review
The Prichard case also provides a high-level lesson in appellate procedure. The order Mr. Prichard appealed was a non-final contempt order; the divorce itself was still ongoing. A party cannot file a “normal” appeal from a non-final order.
Instead, he had to seek an “extraordinary” form of review called a Writ of Certiorari. This is a very difficult legal hurdle to clear. To win on certiorari, a petitioner must prove more than just a simple error. A Tampa divorce lawyer must demonstrate all three of the following:
- The trial court’s order is a “departure from the essential requirements of the law.” (Here, the judge failed to follow the mandatory Parisi test).
- The order will cause “material injury” for the rest of the proceeding. (A $30,000-per-month fine clearly qualifies).
- The injury is “irreparable,” meaning it cannot be fixed in a normal appeal after the final judgment is entered.
The $1,000-per-day fine is the classic example of irreparable harm. By the time a final judgment was entered, Mr. Prichard could have accrued hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, potentially leading to financial ruin, judgments, and liens. This is an injury that could not be “undone” by a final appeal.
The fact that the appellate court granted certiorari review shows how seriously it takes the imposition of open-ended, coercive fines. This is a complex, high-stakes area of law where procedural precision is paramount.
Conclusion: A Lesson in Compliance and Procedure
The Prichard v. Galicia case is a powerful “double-edged sword” lesson for any litigant in a Tampa divorce. On the one hand, it is a stark warning that willfully violating court orders for support and discovery will result in severe sanctions. On the other hand, it is a crucial confirmation that a judge’s power to impose those sanctions is not absolute.
This case reinforces that:
- A trial court must consider a party’s financial resources before imposing a coercive daily fine.
- A fine must be coercive (designed to motivate compliance) and not punitive (designed as an impossible punishment).
- Failure to make these findings is a fundamental error that can be reversed on appeal.
- Non-compliance with discovery and support orders is a high-risk, high-cost strategy that will be met with severe sanctions.
The complex interplay between enforcement, contempt, and appellate procedure is one of the most technically demanding areas of family law. Navigating a motion for contempt, either as the moving party or the one defending against it, requires a Tampa divorce lawyer who understands these high-stakes rules.
If you are a resident of Tampa or Hillsborough County and are struggling to enforce a court order, or if you are facing a motion for contempt, you must act to protect your rights. Contact our office for a consultation to discuss the specific facts of your case and the legal remedies available to you.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is civil contempt in a Florida divorce? Civil contempt is a legal proceeding used to coerce (force) a party to comply with a court order they are violating, such as an order to pay child support or produce financial documents. It is not intended to be a “punishment.”
What is a “coercive fine”? It is a civil contempt sanction, often imposed on a “per diem” (per day) basis, that a party must pay until they comply with the court’s order. The purpose is to make non-compliance more expensive than compliance.
Why did the appellate court reverse the $1,000-per-day fine in the Prichard case? The trial court committed a “departure from the essential requirements of the law” by imposing the $1,000 daily fine without first making a mandatory finding as to Mr. Prichard’s financial ability to pay the fine.
What is the difference between a coercive fine and a punitive fine? A coercive fine is based on the party’s ability to pay and is designed to motivate them to act. A punitive fine is a punishment for a past act and is not related to the person’s ability to pay. Punitive fines are generally reserved for criminal contempt, not civil contempt.
What happens if I do not provide my financial discovery in a Tampa divorce? A court can impose severe sanctions, including: (1) ordering you to pay the other side’s attorney’s fees; (2) holding you in contempt; (3) imputing a higher income to you; or (4) “striking” your pleadings, which means you could lose the right to ask for assets or support.
The McKinney Law Group: Tampa Divorce Attorneys Dedicated to Fair Resolutions
We know that divorce is about more than ending a marriage—it’s about building a future. Our Tampa lawyers help clients reach practical, lasting resolutions through negotiation or litigation.
Call 813-428-3400 or email [email protected] to speak with an attorney.