MARK M. THURMAN, APPELLANT,
v.
GLORIA DIANE THURMAN, 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.
Mark Thurman appeals an order finding him in contempt for non-payment of child support and alimony, with incarceration threatened unless he pays a purge amount. The court affirms the contempt finding but reverses in part to require the trial court to enter a final judgment for arrearages with prejudgment interest and to reconsider appellate attorney's fees on remand.
The contempt order and incarceration sanction were proper, but the order must be amended to allow purging at any time. The trial court abused its discretion by failing to reduce arrearages to a final judgment with prejudgment interest. The trial court's award of attorney's fees was appropriate, but the appellate fee award must be remanded for reconsideration based on income disparity.
[1] A civil contempt order must permit the contemnor to purge the contempt by complying with the disobeyed order at any time, including after incarceration.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by failing to reduce child support and alimony arrearages to a final judgment including prejudgment interest.
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“A civil contemnor must be permitted to purge himself by complying with the disobeyed order.”
Establishes the constitutional requirement that contempt orders allow purging at any time
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMark Thurman failed to pay child support and alimony obligations. The trial court found him in contempt and ordered incarceration unless he paid $8,78…
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 Alimony Arrearages cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Mark M. Thurman appeals and Gloria Diane Thurman cross-appeals an order of contempt which finds Mr. Thurman in contempt for non-payment of child support and alimony and orders him incarcerated unless he purges himself by paying $8,785.77. The trial court also awarded Mrs. Thurman attorney’s fees and refused to enter a judgment against Mr. Thurman. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On Mr. Thurman’s main point, challenging the order of contempt and incarceration, we find no abuse of discretion. The evidence and the findings made by the trial court satisfy the requirements for punishing the contempt by incarceration unless Mr. Thurman pays the purge amount. Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985).
The contempt order does not, however, contain a provision allowing Mr. Thurman to purge himself of the contempt at any time, including after incarceration. A civil contemnor must be permitted to purge himself by complying with the disobeyed order. State ex rel. Coody v. Muszynski, 402 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981). Thus, we amend the order of contempt to provide that Mr. Thurman may purge at any time by payment of the purge amount assigned by the trial court.
On Mrs. Thurman’s cross appeal we find the trial court abused its discretion by failing to reduce the arrearages owed to a final judgment including prejudgment interest. Romans v. Romans, 611 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (error for trial court to fail to award prejudgment interest on alimony and child support arrearages); O’Hara v. O’Hara, 564 So. 2d 1230, 1232 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (“Trial court abused its discretion in failing to award the wife a judgment for her vested right to the arrearage [of child support and alimony]”). On remand, the trial court is directed to rule on the amount of the final judgment and award prejudgment interest.
Finally, we find no abuse of discretion in ordering Mr. Thurman to pay Mrs. Thurman’s attorney’s fees nor in the amount awarded. We provisionally grant Mrs. Thurman’s motion for appellate fees, and remand to the trial court for a determination of whether the disparity in the parties’ incomes warrants such an award, and if so, the reasonable amount of the award. See Davis v. Davis, 584 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991); Shrine v. Shrine, 429 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Dresser v. Dresser, 350 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977).
AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
ZEHMER, C.J., and KAHN and BENTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Remington v. Remington, 705 So. 2d 920 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…f prejudgment interest due the former wife on the child support arrearage owed by the former husband. It is clear that the payee of a support arrearage is entitled to an award of prejudgment interest on such arrearage. See, e.g., Thurman v. Thurman, 637 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). The former husband contends that this court lacks jurisdiction to review the arrearage issue because the former wife’s notice of appeal was not timely as to this issue. The basis of the former husband’s position is that an appe…
-
Conway v. Conway, 111 So. 3d 925 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…e have consistently reversed trial court orders that fail to award prejudgment interest on support arrearages. See Miller v. Miller, 679 So. 2d 858 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Nelson-Higdon v. Higdon, 680 So. 2d 524 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Thurman v. Thurman, 637 So. 2d 64, 65 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). In this case, the trial court did not elaborate in its Final Order as to why it was declining to award any prejudgment interest. The fact that the trial court awarded the Former Wife an amount she was owed from the Former H…
-
Alves v. Barnett Mortg. Co. & J.J. Kislak Mortg. Corp., 688 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…ision once he goes to jail. See Pugliese v. Pugliese, 347 So. 2d 422 (Fla.1977). As the order stands now, if appellant does not pay the unspecified purge amount within ten (10) days, he will be jailed for thirty days.3 In Thurman v. Thur [*461] man, 637 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), a husband was held in contempt for nonpayment of child support and alimony and ordered to be incarcerated unless he purged by paying a specified amount'. The first district found the contempt order defective because it lacked a…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)
- Peavy v. State, 350 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Dresser v. Dresser, 350 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)
- Romans v. Romans, 611 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992)
- Raborn L. Davis, Jr. v. Davis, 584 So. 2d 1117 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991)
- Shrine v. Bertram Shrine, Jr., 429 So. 2d 765 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- State ex rel Franklin C. Coody v. The Honorable Bernard Muszynski, 402 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Ilene S. O'Hara v. O'Hara, 564 So. 2d 1230 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990)