RICH
v.
RICH, RICH
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.
Sandra Rich appealed a contempt order holding her in contempt for failing to pay attorneys' fees to her former husband. The court reversed the contempt order because the underlying fee award had previously been reversed and set aside in a companion appeal, and remanded for the trial court to determine if Sandra Rich is entitled to reimbursement for any payments she made under the now-vacated orders.
The contempt order must be reversed because it was based on a fee award that had previously been reversed and set aside. Additionally, the former husband must reimburse any funds he received under the now-vacated contempt order and fee award, and on remand Sandra Rich will be entitled to reimbursement for any payments she made pursuant to the vacated orders.
[1] A contempt order based on a prior fee award must be reversed when that fee award is subsequently vacated.
[2] A party who has made payments pursuant to a vacated contempt order is entitled to reimbursement for amounts paid.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 contempt order must be reversed. See Wiesenthal v. Wiesenthal, 154 So. 3d 488, 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing a contempt order after the fee order upon which it was based was reversed in a companion appeal).”
Establishes the core holding that a contempt order cannot stand when its underlying fee award has been reversed on appeal.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSandra and John Rich were involved in divorce proceedings. In a prior appeal (case 2D20-440), this court reversed aspects of the divorce judgment and …
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 Attorney'S Fees Award cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge. Sandra Rich challenges an order that held her in contempt because she had not paid attorneys' fees to her former husband, John Rich, in accordance with a prior fee award. We reverse because the underlying rulings upon which the contempt finding was based have been disapproved.
In case number 2D20-440, this court reversed aspects of the Riches' divorce judgment and we remanded for a new trial. See Rich v. Rich, 337 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).
Then, in case number 2D19-2721, we reversed an award of attorneys' fees and costs to the former husband because the award was premised on many of the findings that had been reversed in case number 2D20-440. See Rich v. Rich, 346 So. 3d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022).
The order on appeal in the instant case held the former wife in contempt for failing to pay the fee award that we set aside in case number 2D19-2721. As the former husband correctly concedes, the contempt order must be reversed. See Wiesenthal v. Wiesenthal, 154 So. 3d 488, 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing a contempt order after the fee order upon which it was based was reversed in a companion appeal).
Having reversed both the fee award and the resulting contempt order, we find no basis for permitting the former husband to retain money paid to him thereunder. See Chopin & Chopin, LP v. Brennan, 178 So. 3d 509, 510-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that a party holding funds paid pursuant to a vacated contempt order must reimburse the funds to the other party).
On remand, if the former wife establishes that she has made any payment required by the contempt order or the fee award upon which it was based, she will be "entitled to reimbursement in the amount paid." See id.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Rich v. Rich, 337 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)
- Wiesenthal v. Wiesenthal, 154 So. 3d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)