Case Name: Charles D. ROUTH, Appellant, v. Kathy ROUTH, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1990-05-10
Citations: 565 So. 2d 709
Docket Number: No. 88-2507
Parties: Charles D. ROUTH, Appellant, v. Kathy ROUTH, Appellee.
Judges: COWART, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 565
Pages: 709–712

Head Matter:
Charles D. ROUTH, Appellant, v. Kathy ROUTH, Appellee.
No. 88-2507.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
May 10, 1990.
On Motion for Rehearing Aug. 23, 1990.
Joseph W. DuRocher, Public Defender, and Louis Lorincz, Chief Asst. Public Defender, Orlando, for appellant.
No appearance, for appellee.

Opinion:
PETERSON, Judge.
Charles Routh appeals a judgment finding him in indirect criminal contempt for failure to pay child support and awarding attorneys fees and costs to his former wife. We find merit only in the appeal of the award of attorneys fees and costs and reverse on that issue.
The judgment, finding Routh guilty of indirect criminal contempt contained an award of $800 in attorneys fees and $105 in costs to Routh's former wife. Neither the Florida Statutes nor the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure provide any assistance in determining whether attorneys fees and costs can be awarded to a private individual in a criminal contempt proceeding. The Fourth District Court of Appeal addressed the issue of attorneys fees in criminal contempt actions in Anderson v. City of Wilton Manors, 490 So.2d 1313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). Judge Glickstein's concurring opinion discussed the difference between the concepts of civil and criminal contempt when that court affirmed the trial court's denial of a motion for attorneys fees to a municipality. The concept applicable in that case, as well as the instant case, is that "a contempt proceeding criminal in nature is instituted solely and simply to vindicate the authority of the court or otherwise punish for conduct offensive to the public in violation of an order of the court." Demetree v. State ex rel. Marsh, 89 So.2d 498 (Fla.1956). A judgment of guilt of criminal contempt should, therefore, not inure to the benefit of a private individual.
We recognize the appointment by the court of the former wife's counsel to prosecute Routh for criminal contempt and its authority to do so under Rule 3.840(a)(4), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure. That rule allows the trial judge to determine whether the judge will conduct the hearing without the assistance of counsel, whether the state attorney will assist the court, or whether an attorney will be appointed for that purpose. If the court chooses to appoint an attorney, the manner of his compensation should be considered prior to the appointment.
The only other issue on appeal that we feel would have merit, had we found that the court ordered it, was the allegation by Routh that the court confiscated $70 found on Routh's person at the time he was found in contempt and that the $70 was turned over to the wife. We find nothing in the record to indicate that the trial court confiscated the cash and awarded it to the wife. The only mention of the $70 in the record before us was in that portion of the Judgment and Sentence simply indicating that Routh had $70 on his person when he was remanded.
We reverse paragraph four of the Judgment, Sentence, and Commitment for Indirect Criminal Contempt awarding $800 attorneys fees and $105 costs, but affirm in all other respects.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part.
COWART, J., concurs.
HARRIS, J., dissents with opinion.