ELIAS A. SAFIE, APPELLANT,
v.
LAURA C. SAFIE, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Trial court's contempt order for failure to pay temporary support was reversed because it lacked the requisite finding that the husband willfully failed to pay despite having the ability to do so.
A contempt order for failure to pay court-ordered temporary support must contain an explicit finding that the obligor willfully failed to pay despite then-present ability to do so.
[1] A contempt order for failure to pay court-ordered support requires an explicit finding that the obligor willfully failed to pay despite then-present ability to do so, and…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court held the appellant-husband in contempt for failure to pay court-ordered temporary support to his wife and ordered incarceration if arr…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Willfulness Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court’s order holding the appellant-husband in contempt for failure to pay certain court-ordered temporary support payments to his wife and providing for the husband’s incarceration in the event that the determined arrearages are not fully paid within seven days is reversed because the order does not contain the requisite finding that the husband willfully failed to make such payments despite his then-present ability to do so.1 Garo v. Garo, 347 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1977); Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla.1976); DuBois v. DuBois, 412 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Halpern v. Halpern, 384 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Failla v. Fallia, 379 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Murphy v. Murphy, 370 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979); Hamra v. Hamra, 350 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). This deficiency in the trial court’s order is not remedied, as the wife contends, by the fact that the husband’s financial affidavit, filed a month earlier, reflects that in fact he had the ability to pay. Murphy v. Murphy, supra.
Reversed.
. Nor does the order contain the possible alternative finding that the husband willfully rendered himself unable to pay by divesting himself of assets.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (18 total)
-
Ross v. State, 528 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)…not commingled with the material in the tested packets. In this connection, we think the caselaw which allows random positive testing of one suspect illegal pill commingled in a single packet containing other similar-looking pills, Asmer v. State, 416 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), or the random positive testing of a sample of suspect marijuana commingled in a single bag containing similar-looking material, Kenny v. State, 382 So. 2d 304 (Fla. 1st DCA 1978); Wright v. State, 351 So. 2d 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1…1 / 2
-
RAY v. State, 855 So. 2d 1260 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…t may not thwart the ends of justice by sitting on a technical defect which has occasioned him no prejudice, holding it in reserve as a trap to spring on the State in the event the jury renders an adverse verdict.” Id. at 556 (citing Asmer v. State, 416 So. 2d 485, 487 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)). At bar, there was no technical defect with the affidavit of violation of probation. Rather, the complained of error occurred by the trial court’s detrimental reliance on charges which were wholly absent from the affidavit.…
-
Mariano E. Velunza v. State, 504 So. 2d 780 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…nt of pure cocaine. The record indicates that the contraband, which weighed 1006 grams, contained some cocaine; therefore, under Yu, the state established that Velunza possessed 400 grams or more of a mixture containing cocaine.1 See Asmer v. State, 416 So. 2d 485 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Accordingly, we affirm Velun-za’s conviction for trafficking in cocaine. Velunza’s second point, however, warrants reversal; the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to establish the crime of conspiracy. The record indi…
Previewing 3 of 18 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1976)
- Blum v. Blum, 382 So. 2d 52 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Murphy v. Murphy, 370 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Garo v. Garo, 347 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1977)
- Hamra v. Hamra, 350 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Charles v. Failla, 379 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Hatfield v. Rhett Hatfield, 384 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- DuBOIS v. Gay DuBOIS, 412 So. 2d 23 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)