JAMES C. MAULDIN, APPELLANT,
v.
JENNIFER A. ROMAN F/K/A JENNIFER MAULDIN, 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 court held that the trial court erred by failing to make findings regarding the appellant's present ability to comply with obligations and to plainly identify what must be done to purge contempt in a civil contempt proceeding.
Appellant was found in contempt for failure to comply with a final judgment of dissolution and subsequent court orders. The order awarding fees also l…
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 Ability To Comply cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIFFIN, Judge.
We find no error in the trial court’s several findings1 concerning appellant’s contemptuous failure to comply with the final judgment of dissolution and subsequent court orders. However, because this was a civil contempt proceeding, in each instance the trial court was bound to make a finding of appellant’s present ability to comply with these obligations and to identify plainly what appellant must do to purge his contempt.2 See, e.g., Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985); Robbins v. Robbins, 429 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). No such findings are contained in the order, which requires reversal. Similarly, the portion of the order awarding fees impermissibly lacks any findings justifying the award or the amount. See Hosseini v. Hosseini, 564 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
COBB and DIAMANTIS, JJ., concur. . Based on our analysis of the child support payment records, we question whether appellant was in arrears and are further skeptical that the amount contained in the order is correct; nevertheless, absent a record of the December 11, 1989 hearing, we must approve this finding.
. As drafted, the order requires performance of acts that manifestly cannot be performed while appellant is incarcerated. We also observe that certain conduct of appellant, such as refusal to obey the court’s order not to disparage appellee, visitation drop-off and pick-up violations, and tardy support payments are better suited to a criminal contempt proceeding. This remedy also would not require the proof or findings by the trial court that are lacking in the appealed order. See Contella v. Contella, 557 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fredericks v. Sturgis, 598 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…der of incarceration for civil contempt can be entered there must be a finding that the contemnor has the present ability to purge himself of the contempt. See, e.g., Bowen, supra; Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla.1976); Maudlin v. Roman, 588 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Dowis, supra; Broyles v. Broyles, 573 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990), rev. dismissed, 584 So. 2d 997 (Fla.1991); Campbell v. Campbell, 571 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990), cause dismissed, 581 So. 2d 163 (Fla.1991). No such findi…
-
Finney v. Finney, 603 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…ng by the lower court. The absence of a finding of appellant’s present ability to pay is a fatal defect requiring reversal. Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1279 (Fla.1985); Fredericks v. Sturgis, 598 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Mauldin v. Roman, 588 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Broyles v. Broyles, supra. Accordingly, we vacate the contempt orders because failure to pay marital debts pursuant to a court order is not subject to the contempt power of a court. Moreover, the trial court failed to make the…
-
Lubin v. Schumer, 593 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…cal expenses, without finding that Lubin has the present 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. . Althoug…
Authorities Cited
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)
- Robbins v. Robbins, 429 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Hosseini v. Mirkamal Afsah Hosseini, 564 So. 2d 548 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)
- Molina v. State, 557 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- AL Hutchinson Entp., Inc. v. Am. Bankers INS. Grp., 557 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)