Opinion ID: 1863262
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: The present controversy evolved from Broward County's (the County) counterclaim for injunctive relief to prevent the petitioners, Sam Parisi and Sam Parisi d/b/a Sam's Recycling, Inc., from engaging in operations at their auto salvage yard (the Yard) that endangered the environment. [1] The trial court entered an order granting the County's request for injunctive relief and enjoined the petitioners from engaging in operations at the Yard causing the discharge of hazardous materials, as well as requiring the construction of additional secondary containment at the Yard. The County subsequently moved to hold the petitioners in civil contempt for failing to comply with previous orders enjoining environmental hazards. At the conclusion of the hearing, the County stated that [w]e're asking this court to exercise its power under the law and levy civil contempt fines. We would like those contempt fines secured by a bond.  (Emphasis supplied.) The trial court adjudged the petitioners in civil contempt and ordered the petitioners to post a bonded fine as a contempt sanction to secure performance of certain remedial measures on the property. See Parisi, 710 So.2d at 981. The contempt order required the petitioners to either post a bond or place funds in escrow pending their compliance with the court's orders to remediate contamination at the Yard. [2] The contempt order provided that the bonded fines would carry over from year to year until both the active remediation of the property and the monitoring phase concluded. The contempt order further provided that if petitioners failed to comply with the orders to remediate the property, the funds would revert to the County and petitioners' business could be shut down. Petitioners argue that the trial court's order was deficient because it did not consider their financial resources to post the bond before imposing the contempt sanction. The Fourth District rejected this argument, finding that all that was required was that the trial court make a finding that the contemnor had the ability to comply with the underlying order that required some type of action. Id. Accordingly, the Fourth District concluded that the contemnors'ability to post the bond would become relevant in a motion for contempt for the failure to post it, where the county seeks the imposition of a fine under Johnson or of a purgeable jail sentence. Id. On rehearing, Judge Warner dissented, concluding that the United States Supreme Court's decision in United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 304, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947), requires that: [A] court which has returned a conviction for contempt must, in fixing the amount of a fine to be imposed as a punishment or as a means of securing future compliance, consider the amount of defendant's financial resources and the consequent seriousness of the burden to that particular defendant. Parisi, 710 So.2d at 982 (quoting United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. at 304, 67 S.Ct. 677) (emphasis supplied). Judge Warner concluded that under this precedent, before imposing a civil contempt fine, including the bonded fine imposed here, the trial court must consider the financial resources of the contemnor. See id. The core issue to resolve in this case is whether the bonded fine imposed is a valid civil contempt sanction. The County asserts that because the trial court did not impose a fine, but instead imposed a bonded fine, there was no need to comply with the requirements applicable to contempt sanctions, including an inquiry into the financial resources of the contemnor. Alternatively, the County asserts that this bonded fine was a compensatory contempt sanction for which the financial resources of the contemnor do not need to be considered.