← Case library
3rd DCASeptember 14, 2018Petition Granted; Writs of Bodily Attachment Quashed⭐ Notable

Adams v. Utah Power Systems, LLC

Case No. 18-1113

After a judgment debtor failed to respond to discovery in aid of execution, the trial court held him in civil contempt and issued writs of bodily attachment, under which he was jailed for roughly two months without ever personally appearing before the court. The Third DCA granted habeas corpus, quashing both writs (and a related writ against the debtor's wife) because the trial court never held an evidentiary hearing, never made a present-ability-to-purge finding after the debtor claimed compliance, and failed to specify what acts would purge the contempt.

Key facts

  • Judgment debtor Adams failed to respond to discovery in aid of execution in a case brought by Utah Power Systems, LLC.
  • The trial court held Adams in civil contempt, issued writs of bodily attachment, and jailed him for approximately two months without requiring him to personally appear before the court.
  • +2 more key facts with a free trial

Why it matters

Although arising in a judgment-collection context, this opinion is a concise checklist of the procedural safeguards required before a court may jail anyone for civil contempt under Rule 1.380 — a… — full analysis with a trial

Best value · free

Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days

The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.

  • Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
  • Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
  • Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Start my free 30-day trial → No credit card required
👀 Take a quick tour of the site → 60 seconds · click a real case · no login

Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.

Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.