KEITH M. RONAN, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBIN LYN RONAN, 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.
In this family law appeal, the First District Court of Appeal held that a trial court abused its discretion by refusing to temporarily suspend a father's child support obligation despite his involuntary job loss, year-long unemployment, and depletion of assets. The court affirmed a prior reduction order but reversed the denial of suspension and contempt adjudication, remanding with directions to suspend support until the father finds employment.
The trial court abused its discretion by refusing to temporarily suspend child support. The court affirmed the prior order reducing (but not suspending) support as supported by evidence at that time, but reversed the subsequent denial of suspension and contempt adjudication. The court remanded with directions to suspend support effective August 10, 1992, until the appellant finds employment or the trial court determines he is no longer making a good-faith effort.
[1] A trial court abuses its discretion by refusing to temporarily suspend a child support obligation when the obligor is involuntarily terminated from employment through no…
[2] A trial court may reduce, but not suspend, a child support obligation if the record contains sufficient evidence to support that action at the time the order is entered.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 trial court abused its discretion when it refused temporarily to suspend appellant's child support obligation”
Establishes the central holding that refusal to suspend support was an abuse of discretion under the circumstances.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant Keith Ronan was involuntarily terminated from a long-held job through no fault of his own. Despite an exhaustive job search over more than a…
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 Contempt Of Court cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Having carefully reviewed the entire record, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion when it refused temporarily to suspend appellant’s child support obligation. See, e.g., Manning v. Manning, 600 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992). The evidence is uncontradicted that appellant was terminated involuntarily, through no fault of his own, from a job which he had held for many years. Despite an exhaustive job search, appellant had been unable to find new employment m more than a year. His assets had been depleted, and his unemployment compensation benefits had expired. It is clear that, despite his best efforts, appellant was simply without funds — on which to live, or with which to pay child support.
We affirm the amended order entered on July 17, 1992, which reduced, but did not suspend, appellant’s child support obligation, because we conclude that the record contains evidence sufficient to support the trial court’s action at the time that order was entered. However, we reverse the order entered on November 5, 1992, which denied appellant’s request to suspend his child support obligation until he found employment, and adjudged appellant to be in contempt of court for nonpayment of child support. -We remand with directions that the trial court enter an order suspending appellant’s child support obligation effective as of August 10, 1992, and until such time as appellant finds employment or the trial court determines that appellant is no longer making a good-faith effort to do so; and denying appellee’s motion for contempt.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; and REMANDED, with directions.
SMITH, KAHN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (12 total)
-
Merdian v. Cochran, 654 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…conditions of release can reasonably protect the community from the risk of physical harm to persons, assure the presence of the accused at trial, or assure the integrity of the judicial process, may the accused be detained.2 Elderbroom v. Knowles, 621 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). We cannot consider this omission harmless in this case, because it appears to us from the record that there is evidence which would support release. The petitioner has no criminal record at all. He has a good job and strong tie…
-
Pitts v. Richmond B. Pitts, 626 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)…m that obligation, stating: “The former husband is entitled to an order temporarily reducing child support payments during such time as it is reasonably necessary for him to reestablish himself.” Manning, 600 So. 2d at 1276. See also Ronan v. Ronan, 621 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); McConnell v. McConnell, 552 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989). Despite some evidence to the contrary, the record contains evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that the husband’s unemployment was involuntary, and that h…
-
Kirkland v. Fortune, 661 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…gesting a different, less onerous, burden (390 So. 2d at 720), no appellate court has so interpreted that language. On the contrary, all of the appellate decisions since Arthur have continued to follow Russell and its progeny. Elderbroom v. Knowles, 621 So. 2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); State v. Perry, 605 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 3d DCA), review denied, 613 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1992); Mininni v. Gillum, 477 So. 2d 1013 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985). In Perry, the Third District expressly rejected such an interpretation, saying: We do n…
Previewing 3 of 12 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Manning v. Manning, 600 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)