BONNIE QUEENER, APPELLANT,
v.
CARL QUEENER, 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.
Bonnie Queener appeals a contempt finding for failing to pay a lump-sum alimony installment. The appellate court affirms the contempt finding but vacates the jail sentence and remands for an evidentiary hearing to determine her present ability to pay, as required in civil contempt proceedings.
The court affirmed the finding of contempt, as the presumption that the defaulting party had the ability to pay was not rebutted by the wife. However, the court vacated the jail sentence and purge amount, finding the trial court erred in failing to make a separate express written finding that the wife had the present ability to pay the purge amount before imposing the jail sentence, as required in civil contempt proceedings.
[1] A civil contempt proceeding requires an express written finding that the contemnor has the present ability to pay the purge amount.
[2] A civil contempt order that allows the contemnor to purge the contempt by paying an arrearage is not subject to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840.
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“The final judgment of dissolution directing the wife to pay lump-sum alimony created a presumption that the wife, as the defaulting party, had the ability to pay.”
Establishes the presumption of ability to pay in alimony cases and places burden on the defaulting party to rebut it.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court ordered Bonnie Queener to pay her former husband $100,000 in lump-sum alimony in semiannual installments of $12,500 over four years. A…
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 Motion For Modification cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHEB, Acting Chief Judge.
Bonnie Queener, the wife, appeals from an order holding her in contempt for failing to pay a lump-sum alimony installment to Carl Queener, her former husband.
In the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, the trial court directed the wife to pay the husband $100,000 in lump-sum alimony in semiannual installments of $12,-500 over four years. After October 29, 1985, the date the first installment was due, the wife tendered a check to the husband for $6,250, which the husband refused to cash. On November 25, 1985, the wife filed a motion for modification of the installment payments to extend the payments over eight years. The record fails to disclose whether a hearing was held on this motion.
On December 11, 1985, the husband moved to hold the wife in contempt for her failure to pay the first installment. On January 31, 1986, the trial court, after an unrecorded hearing, found the wife in contempt. It ordered her to serve 179 days in county jail but allowed her to purge herself of the contempt and sentence by paying the $6,250 arrearage on the first installment within fifteen days of the order. The wife appealed.
First, the wife argues the trial court erred in failing to follow Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840 as required by Good v. Good, 463 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). Her contention is without merit. Unlike the contempt order in Good, the order here provided that the wife could purge herself of the entire contempt and jail sentence by paying the $6,250 arrear-age. Since she was not required to serve any time in jail, this contempt proceeding was civil in nature. Thus, Rule 3,840 does not apply.
Second, the wife contends the court’s order is defective because it fails to include an express written finding that she had the present ability to pay the purge amount. She is correct.
The final judgment of dissolution directing the wife to pay lump-sum alimony created a presumption that the wife, as the defaulting party, had the ability to pay. Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1280 (Fla.1985). The wife had the burden to come forward with evidence to dispel the presumption that she had the ability to pay and wilfully disobeyed the court order. Id. Since the contempt hearing was not recorded, we must presume that she failed to meet this burden. Thus, we cannot say the trial court abused its discretion in finding her in contempt. However, the trial judge erred in failing to separately find that the wife had the present ability to pay the purge amount before imposing the 179 day jail sentence as required in a civil contempt proceeding. Id.
Accordingly, we affirm the finding of . contempt. We vacate the purge amount and the imposition of 179 days in county jail in lieu of paying that amount. We remand for an evidentiary hearing on the wife’s present ability to pay the purge amount and direct the trial court to make a specific written finding on that ability. See, e.g., Tuten v. Tuten, 495 So. 2d 270, (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) Our opinion is without prejudice to the wife’s renewing her motion for modification of the terms of payment in lump-sum alimony as to any payments accruing after November 25, 1985, the date of the filing of her petition.
FRANK and HALL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Russell v. Russell, 559 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…lf. Id. at 1278—79; Scapin v. Scapin, 553 So. 2d 319, 320 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989); Paulk v. Braxton, 15 F.L.W. D535 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb. 26, 1990); Knowles, 522 So. 2d at 479; Moskowitz v. Moskowitz, 549 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Queener v. Queener, 495 So. 2d 269, 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). If the court concludes that the respondent has willfully divested himself of the ability to pay, then that conduct may be punished by incarceration or otherwise in a criminal contempt proceeding with the attendant due proces…
-
Giallanza v. Dep't OF Revenue, 799 So. 2d 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)…ecord as required by Florida Family Law Rule 12.491(e)(2). Because the contempt hearing was not recorded, we must presume that the former husband failed to meet his burden to dispel the presumption that he had the ability to pay. Queener v. Queener, 495 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986). Therefore, we affirm the trial [*258] court’s finding of contempt. However, the trial court’s order is deficient in that it fails to include an express written finding that the former husband had the present ability to pay the pu…
-
Wright v. Wright, 507 So. 2d 655 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…nt ability to pay. No pleadings were tendered which raised any change in circumstances that would have warranted the trial judge altering his original finding of present ability to pay, Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985); Queener v. Queener, 495 So. 2d 269 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), and therefore we find no error in the contempt order of September. Because there were continuing maturing obligations on the properties involved, the trial court apparently without objection in the record, established a procedure…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)
- Howell James Tuten v. Tuten, 495 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986)
- Good v. Good, 463 So. 2d 456 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)