WILLIAM DEFOREST THOMPSON, APPELLANT,
v.
TOBITHA CROFTON THOMPSON, 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 Fourth District affirmed the trial court's contempt finding for failure to pay alimony and support, holding that substantial equity in the husband's law office building provided ample evidence of present ability to pay, and that allowing a purge period with a hearing requirement before commitment did not constitute error.
A trial court properly finds contempt for failure to pay alimony and support when there is ample evidence of present ability to pay, and may allow a purge period with a mandatory hearing before commitment without error.
[1] A trial court may impose a purge provision in a contempt order for failure to pay alimony and support, provided the order contains a definite provision for commitment and…
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“a contempt order should contain a definite provision for immediate punishment, the court having no authority to defer the determination of what punishment should be inflicted dependent on future conduct”
The court distinguished Cokonougher v. Cokonougher, explaining the difference between a contempt order with a definite purge provision and one that merely warns of potential incarceration.
A husband failed to pay alimony and support obligations. The trial court found he had substantial equity in his law office building demonstrating pres…
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 Order Of Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm on all issues raised. There was ample evidence, including a substantial equity in the husband’s law office building, upon which the trial court could base his finding of present ability to pay on this motion for contempt for failure to pay alimony and support. Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985). Furthermore, we find no error in the court allowing the husband a period of time to purge the contempt, since the trial court specifically provided for a hearing before an order of commitment would be entered. See Hilson v. Hilson, 145 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).
We distinguish Cokonougher v. Cokonougher, 543 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), wherein the court stated that “a contempt order should contain a definite provision for immediate punishment, the court having no authority to defer the determination of what punishment should be inflicted dependent on future conduct.” Id. at 461.
In Cokonougher the trial court had not sentenced the recalcitrant husband to jail unless he paid the purge provision but instead had basically only warned him that he “shall be faced with the perils of incarceration.” Id. at 461.
This may be contrasted with the instant case where the court ordered incarceration unless the purge provisions were met. Coupled with the requirement of a hearing before any commitment might actually issue, in line with Hilson, Phillips v. Phillips, 502 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), and Acosta v. Acosta, 409 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), we find no error. LETTS, GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.
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)
- William deForest Thompson v. Tobitha Thompson, 576 So. 2d 267 (Fla. 1991)
- Cokonougher v. Cokonougher, 543 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- Haldale Corp. v. Avante Garde Condo. Ass'n, Inc., 502 So. 2d 2 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- William deForest Thompson v. Tobitha Crofton Thompson, 550 So. 2d 496 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Ottis Tal Hilson v. Hilson, 145 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- 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)