DAVID COGGINS
v.
JESSICA COGGINS
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.
David Coggins appealed a family court decision regarding child support or alimony obligations. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling, applying established law that a party in default of support payments bears the burden of proving inability to pay due to circumstances beyond their control.
The court affirmed the lower court's decision. The party in default of support obligations bears the burden of demonstrating inability to pay by showing that circumstances beyond their control, which intervened after the support order, eliminated their ability to meet the obligations.
“This initial judicial determination creates, in subsequent proceedings, a presumption that there is an ability to pay. In a civil contempt proceeding for failure to pay child support or alimony, the movant must show that a prior court order directed the party to pay the support or alimony, and that the party in default has failed to make the ordered payments.”
Establishes the burden framework: initial order creates presumption of ability to pay, and movant must prove the order and default.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe opinion does not provide detailed facts of the case. It references a prior court order directing support payments and a subsequent default by the …
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.
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed.
See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1278–79 (Fla. 1985) (“This initial judicial determination creates, in subsequent proceedings, a presumption that there is an ability to pay. In a civil contempt proceeding for failure to pay child support or alimony, the movant must show that a prior court order directed the party to pay the support or alimony, and that the party in default has failed to make the ordered payments. The burden of producing evidence then shifts to the defaulting party, who must dispel the presumption of ability to pay by demonstrating that, due to circumstances beyond his control which intervened since the time the order directing him to pay was entered, he no longer has the ability to meet his support obligations.”); see also St. Petersburg Hous. Auth. v. J.R. Dev., 706 So. 2d 1377, 1378 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998) (“Rehearing is not intended as a device to present additional evidence that was available, although not presented, at the original trial [or hearing].").
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)
- The ST. Petersburg Hous. Auth. v. J.R. Dev., 706 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998)