DANIEL KUBIT, APPELLANT,
v.
CARMELLA KUBIT, 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 appellate court affirmed the trial court's contempt finding against a husband who failed to pay temporary alimony and attorney's fees, holding that the record supported the finding that he had the present ability to pay despite his job loss.
A husband found in contempt for failing to pay temporary alimony and attorney's fees may be held liable where the record demonstrates he had present ability to pay, despite job loss, when he retained savings and severance funds.
[1] A finding of present ability to pay in a contempt proceeding for failure to pay alimony and attorney's fees is supported by the record where the obligor retains savings a…
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 intelligenceThe trial court ordered the husband to pay $3,200 monthly temporary alimony and $7,500 in temporary attorney's fees. When payments were not made, 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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Present Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Judge.
Appellant husband appeals from a non-final order finding him in contempt and ordering him to pay certain monies in the future or be imprisoned for contempt.
The trial court entered an order in this dissolution case ordering the husband to pay temporary alimony of $3,200 per month to his wife and $7,500 for temporary attorney’s fees to her counsel. When the original payments were not forthcoming, the wife sought enforcement by contempt. At the evidentiary hearing thereon, the husband admitted the arrearages, but contended he had lost his job as an accountant that paid him $5,800 net monthly, and had not been able to obtain new employment. He did not account for the $5,000 he had in a savings plan, nor for the $17,000 he received as severance pay between October 12th and the end of November, except to say he paid some outstanding bills of approximately $2,000 and his wife $1,400. However, elimination of those payments and his alleged living expenses left more than enough to pay the defaulted payments. Thus, the record supports the trial judge’s findings that he had the present ability to pay.
Appellant contends that the finding of present ability to pay is contradicted by the trial court’s statements at the contempt hearing. We disagree. The trial court’s colloquy at the hearing does not conflict with his judicial finding in the order of contempt, and thus the authorities relied on by appellant are not apposite.
Accordingly, we affirm the order appealed from.
HERSEY, C.J., and WALDEN, J., concur.