MARC RUBIN, APPELLANT,
v.
MADELINE RUBIN, 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.
Marc Rubin appeals from an order holding him in contempt for failing to pay $13,500 in child support and alimony arrearages, denying his petition to modify the support obligation, and awarding his ex-wife medical expenses, a vehicle, and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed the contempt finding and all other aspects of the trial court's order.
The court affirmed the contempt finding because the trial court made the requisite finding that Rubin willfully failed to make payments despite his then-present ability to do so, and the order properly allowed him to purge himself of contempt by payment. The denial of modification was proper because Rubin failed to meet the heavy burden of demonstrating substantial changed circumstances, as his financial position had actually improved. The awards of medical expenses, automobile, and attorney's fees were affirmed as no reversible error was demonstrated.
[1] A finding of willful failure to pay child support and alimony, despite the ability to do so, is a prerequisite for a contempt finding and incarceration, and such a findin…
[2] A party seeking to modify child support and alimony obligations incorporated into a final judgment of dissolution based on a settlement agreement must demonstrate a subst…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“That portion of the trial court's order holding appellant in contempt and providing for his incarceration in the event the arrearages are not paid, is affirmed. The order contains the requisite finding that appellant wilfully failed to make such payments despite his then-present ability to do so”
Establishes the standard for contempt in support cases and affirms the contempt finding
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarc Rubin and Madeline Rubin were parties to a final judgment of dissolution that incorporated a property settlement and child custody agreement. Rub…
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 Modification Of Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
Appellant, Marc Rubin, appeals from an order holding him in contempt for failure to pay $13,500 in child support and alimony arrearages, denying his petition to modify the terms of the final judgment of dissolution incorporating a property settlement and child custody agreement entered into by the parties, and awarding appellee medical expenses, a motor vehicle and attorney’s fees.
* That portion of the trial court’s order holding appellant in contempt and providing for his incarceration in the event the arrearages are not paid, is affirmed. The order contains the requisite finding that appellant wilfully failed to make such payments despite his then-present ability to do so, Garo v. Garo, 347 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1977); Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1976); Halpern v. Halpern, 384 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Murphy v. Murphy, 370 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), cert. denied, 383 So. 2d 1199 (Fla.1980); Adams v. Adams, 357 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), a finding supported by the evidence, and provides that appellant may purge himself of the contempt by payment of his outstanding obligations. Hammond v. Sandstrom, 376 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979).
Nor do we find any abuse of discretion in the trial court’s denial of appellant’s petition for modification of the final judgment on the basis that there is no credible evidence that circumstances had substantially changed to justify modification. In fact, as the trial court found and the record affirms, appellant’s monetary position has improved since the settlement agreement was entered into as demonstrated by his own testimony and financial affidavit. Thus, appellant has not met the heavy burden required to modify an alimony and child support obligation based on an agreement between the parties. O’Brien v. O’Brien, 407 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Jaffee v. Jaffee, 394 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Floyd v. Floyd, 393 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
Lastly, no reversible error has been demonstrated in the trial court’s enforcement of provisions of the final judgment concerning medical expenses and an automobile for appellee, nor the attorney’s fee award to appellee at the contempt proceedings.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Bess v. Bess, 471 So. 2d 1342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…ony and child support payments. A party seeking to modify agreed alimony and child support payments must meet a heavy burden in showing circumstances which justify a modification. Brooks v. Brooks, 423 So. 2d 995 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Rubin v. Rubin, 418 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Schottenstein v. Schottenstein, 384 So. 2d 933 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1378 (Fla.1980); Hagen v. Hagen, 308 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). While the record shows that Mrs. Bess proved her ex-husband’s ability to p…
-
Artie May Farmer v. Farmer, 450 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…e of circumstances. Accordingly, modification was inappropriate. See e.g., O’Brien v. O’Brien, 407 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Jaffee v. Jaffee, 394 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981); Floyd v. Floyd, 393 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Rubin v. Rubin, 418 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We therefore reverse the order which modified the provision in paragraph 12. REVERSED and REMANDED. DOWNEY and DELL, JJ., concur.…
-
Stanzione v. Stanzione, 449 So. 2d 1289 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Rubin v. Rubin, 418 So. 2d 1065 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Bradley v. Bradley, 347 So. 2d 789 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Castor v. Castor, 316 So. 2d 588 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975).…
Authorities Cited
- Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1976)
- Jaffee v. Jaffee, 394 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Murphy v. Murphy, 370 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Garo v. Garo, 347 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1977)
- Thomas v. State, 393 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Hammond v. Sandstrom, 376 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- O'Brien v. O'Brien, 407 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Adams v. Adams, 357 So. 2d 264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Hatfield v. Rhett Hatfield, 384 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)