RICHARD E. BROWN, APPELLANT,
v.
NORA BROWN, APPELLEE

Fla. 5th DCA | 1994-09-09
No. 94-1012
HARRIS, C.J., and DIAMANTES and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.
642 So. 2d 618 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1994) Positive Treatment
Cited by 7 cases

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.

Holding

The court held that a stay of arrest is granted due to vagueness in the contempt order and the lack of a finding of present ability to pay the purge amount.

Facts & Procedural History

Richard E. Brown was held in contempt for failing to pay child support and sentenced to jail. He appealed, arguing he lacked the present ability to pa…

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.

Topics
Present Ability To Pay Indigency Criminal Contempt Civil Contempt

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Present Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Richard E. Brown was held in contempt of court because he failed to pay his court-ordered child support and sentenced to jail for “not less than 30 days.” He has appealed contending he lacks (and lacked at the time of the contempt hearing) the present ability to make the purge payment.

This matter is before us now on a motion for an order staying the arrest portion of the Order of Contempt until the appeal is decided. Because of vagueness of the Order of contempt, we grant the stay order until we can review the record. Although the trial court found that Brown “has the ability to meet his child support obligations as previously ordered by this Court,” there was no finding that he had the present ability to meet the $1,254.78 purge amount. See Dragland v. Dragland, 613 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993).

Further, the trial court seems to have contemplated an automatic conversion of the civil contempt order into a criminal contempt order after fourteen days if Brown didn’t come up with the money because after that time he is sentenced to an indefinite period [“of at least thirty days”] without providing any purge amount. There is no indication that Brown was afforded his due process rights for a criminal contempt hearing.

Although the trial court recognized Brown indigent for the purposes of filing this appeal, it held him able to pay for the transcript of the contempt hearing. Obviously we cannot determine if the record established support for a finding of present ability to pay if we are not provided the transcript showing what evidence was presented. Brown claims he is unemployed, living out of his automobile and dependent on friends for minimal support.

We temporarily grant the requested stay order preventing Brown’s incarceration until the record of the contempt hearing is made available to us for our review. The costs of such transcript will be taxed at a later date.

It is so ORDERED.

HARRIS, C.J., and DIAMANTES and THOMPSON, JJ., concur.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Santa Rosa Cnty. v. Admin. Comm'n, 661 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1995)
    …PER CURIAM. We have for review Santa Rosa County v. Administration Commission, Division of Administrative Hearings, 642 So. 2d 618 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), in which the First District certified the following question: DOES A COUNTY HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE BY A DECLARATORY ACTION THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF A STATUTE OR RULE WHICH INDIRECTLY REQUIRES THE COUNTY TO EXPEND PUBLIC FUN…
  • Island Resorts Invs., Inc. v. Jones, 189 So. 3d 917 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)
    …exception is a narrow exception.”); Branca v. City of Miramar, 634 So. 2d 604, 606 (Fla.1994) (recognizing the public funds exception when the law requires the expenditure of public funds); Santa Rosa Cty. v. Admin. Comm’n, Div. of Admin. Hearings, 642 So. 2d 618, 623 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), approved in part, disapproved in part, Santa Rosa Cty. v. Admin. Comm’n, Div. of Admin. Hearings, 661 So. 2d 1190 (Fla.1995) (“Legislation which affects the duties of [*923] state ■ officers and agencies is presumed valid,…
  • The Sch. Dist. of Escambia Cnty. v. Santa Rosa Dunes Owners Ass'n, Inc., 274 So. 3d 492 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw