ROBERT W. T'FELT, N/K/A BOBBIE T'FELT, APPELLANT,
v.
DONNA L. T'FELT, 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.
The court affirmed the termination of visitation and refusal to modify support, but vacated the contempt finding due to a lack of specificity.
Appellant challenged a trial court order terminating visitation, refusing to modify child support, and finding him in contempt for non-payment.…
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 Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We have reviewed the trial court’s order finding appellant in contempt for willful failure to pay child support, terminating appellant’s visitation rights with the parties’ two children, and refusing appellant’s request to modify child support obligations and establish visitation rights.
Appellant’s chief complaint on appeal concerns the trial court’s termination of visitation rights and its refusal to establish visitation rights. Of course, trial courts have broad discretion in matters of custody and visitation rights. Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla.1975). Since the record reveals substantial competent evidence to support the court’s order terminating visitation rights, we affirm on that issue. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976). Likewise, there is substantial competent evidence to support the court’s refusal to modify appellant’s child support obligations. Our ruling, however, is without prejudice to appellant petitioning the trial court to establish visitation rights or modify child support obligations based on a showing of a change in circumstances subsequent to entry of the trial court’s final order. Finally, we agree with appellee that the evidence supports the court’s finding that appellant has failed to pay the child support required. However, the portion of the order finding appellant in contempt is defective, because it fails to recite the precise amount of child support and mortgage payments due.
Accordingly, we vacate that portion of the order finding appellant in contempt and remand with directions that the trial court determine the precise amount of payments for which appellant has failed to pay. Before issuing any order of commitment, the court must first comply with the mandates of Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla.1976). See also Smith v. Smith, 430 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
OTT, C.J., and SCHEB and SCHOON-OVER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Estefani v. Libia Penafiel, 624 So. 2d 343 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993)…ights of the father, paternal grandparents, and paternal great-grandparents, see Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Freeburg v. Freeburg, 596 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); Hunter v. Hunter, 540 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); T'Felt v. T'Felt, 446 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984), and allowing the mother to remove the children from Dade County. See Fabre v. Levine, 618 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We do not find an abuse of discretion by the trial judge and we, therefore, affirm. Canakaris v. Canakaris,…
-
Hoover v. Burnworth, 660 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Grant v. Corbitt, 95 So. 2d 25 (Fla.1957); T’Felt v. T’Felt, 446 So. 2d 1110 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984).…
Authorities Cited
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Dinkel v. Dinkel, 322 So. 2d 22 (Fla. 1975)
- Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1976)
- Smith v. Smith, 430 So. 2d 521 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)