JULIO PRADAS, APPELLANT,
v.
ANGELA PRADAS, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a contempt order for failure to pay spousal support because the trial court failed to make specific findings regarding the obligor's present ability to pay or prior divestment of ability through fault or neglect.
An order of contempt for failure to pay support is fatally defective if it does not contain specific findings that the obligor either presently has the ability to comply and willfully refuses, or previously had the ability but divested himself of it through fault or neglect.
[1] An order of contempt for failure to pay spousal support must contain specific findings that the obligor either presently has the ability to comply and willfully refuses,…
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 intelligence“the petitioner presently has the ability to comply with the order and willfully refuses to do so, or (2) that the petitioner previously had the ability to comply, but divested himself of that ability through his fault or neglect designed to frustrate the intent and purpose of the order”
Statement of the two alternative findings required for a valid contempt order for failure to pay support
Julio Pradas was found in contempt by the trial court for failing to make support payments to his former wife, Angela Pradas.…
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 Willful Refusal To Comply cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Julio Armando Pradas petitions this court for a writ of certiorari to review an order of the trial court finding him in contempt for failing to make support payments to his former wife. The order is appealable as a non-final order after final order pursuant to Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(4); we treat the petition as a timely filed notice of appeal, Thomson, Bohrer, Werth & Razook v. Multi Restaurant Concepts, Inc., 561 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), and brief of appellant. Upon consideration of the brief, response, and reply, we reverse and remand.
An order of contempt for failure to pay support must contain specific findings that either “(1) the petitioner presently has the ability to comply with the order and willfully refuses to do so, or (2) that the petitioner previously had the ability to comply, but divested himself of that ability through his fault or neglect designed to frustrate the intent and purpose of the order.” Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650, 651 (Fla.1976), receded from on other grounds sub nom., Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985); Hernandez v. Hernandez, 478 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Acosta v. Acosta, 409 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Because the trial court failed to set forth specific findings, we hold that the order of contempt is fatally defective.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Walden v. Professor Abel Adekola & The Dist. Bd. of Trs. of Miami-Dade Cmty. Coll., 773 So. 2d 1218 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…. In the contempt context, the courts have routinely insisted that the required findings appear on the face of the order, see Howell v. Howell, 700 So. 2d 467 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997); Rosen v. Rosen, 579 So. 2d 846 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Pradas v. Prados, 561 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Weeks v. Weeks, 490 So. 2d 1059 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986), regardless of whether the issue was raised in the trial court. Since the order now before us does not contain the required finding of willfulness, and since we have concluded t…
-
Lubin v. Schumer, 593 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…nt ability to pay. The trial court’s failure to make that finding renders the remaining provision of the order defective.1 See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1277 (Fla.1985); Mauldin v. Roman, 588 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Pradas v. Prados, 561 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Russell v. Russell, 559 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). Accordingly, we affirm the order of contempt in part and reverse in part. Remanded for further proceedings. . Although it is unnecessary to reach this issue, we note tha…
-
Rosaire R. Badger v. Sheri-Lyn Badger, 568 So. 2d 79 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)…ontempt. On June 12,1989, the trial court denied that motion and the husband perfected this appeal from that order. We commence by pointing out that the order of May 19, 1989, holding the husband in contempt was a non-final order. Pradas v. Pradas, 561 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); Continental Casualty Company v. Morgan, 445 So. 2d 678 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Langbert v. Langbert, 409 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Rand v. Rand, 491 So. 2d 1293 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986). That being the case, Florida Rule of Civil…
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)
- Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1976)
- Hernandez v. Sudan Hernandez, 478 So. 2d 458 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)
- Thomson v. Multi Rest. Concepts, Inc., 561 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Beth S. v. Grant Assocs., Inc., 409 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Carvajal v. Cleofe Murguia and Aido Murguia, 409 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)