MELVIN WASHBURN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIE WASHBURN, 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 Court of Appeal reversed a contempt of court order against a former husband for failure to pay court-ordered alimony because the trial court failed to make required findings regarding his present ability to pay and his willful and deliberate refusal to obey the order.
The trial court's contempt order was deficient and must be reversed because it failed to make specific findings that the appellant had the present ability to pay the purge amount and failed to contain an express finding of willful or deliberate refusal to obey the court order.
[1] A civil contempt order must be reversed when the trial court fails to make specific findings in the written order that the obligor had the present ability to pay the purg…
[2] A civil contempt order must contain an express finding of willful or deliberate refusal to obey a court order.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 fails to make specific findings in the written order that Appellant had the present ability to pay the purge amount”
Establishes the first deficiency in the contempt order - the requirement for written findings of ability to pay
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMelvin Washburn was ordered to pay $75 per week in alimony under a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage entered April 1, 1985. In October 1992, h…
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 Pay Purge Amount cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final order adjudicating appellant, former husband, in contempt of court for failure to pay court ordered alimony. The former husband also appeals the trial court’s denial of his Emergency Motion for Reconsideration of Order of Contempt. Because the trial court’s final order fails to make the requisite findings that appellant had the present ability to pay the purge amount and that there was a willful and deliberate refusal to obey the court order, we reverse.
Appellant was ordered to pay $75 per week in alimony pursuant to a Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage, entered April 1, 1985. In October, 1992, appellant filed for a modification of the Final Judgment, which motion was denied. Appellant challenged the denial but it was affirmed on appeal. Washburn v. Washburn, 640 So. 2d 1122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
Subsequent to the denial of appellant’s motion for modification, the trial court entered an order finding appellant in contempt of court for failure to pay the arrearage on the alimony payments. The court ordered that appellant either serve 10 days in jail or pay the purge amount of $500.00. Appellant also filed for an Emergency Motion for Reconsideration, arguing that the order on the motion for contempt was in contravention of applicable law. The motion was denied and it is from these orders that the former husband appeals.
We find the order of the trial court on the motion for contempt to be deficient in several respects. First, the trial court fails to make specific findings in the written order that Appellant had the present ability to pay the purge amount1. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985). See also Connolly v. Connolly, 543 So. 2d 356, 357 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), (civil contempt order had to be set aside because trial court failed to make a specific finding in written order that the former husband had the present ability to pay the purge amount and because the record did not contain a transcript of the proceedings reflecting evidence of the appellant’s ability to pay the purge amount.) Secondly, the trial court’s order is deficient in that it does not contain an express finding of willful or deliberate refusal to obey a court order. Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985); Commonwealth Fed Sav. & Loan v. Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271, 1273 (Fla.1990).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand with directions that the trial court conduct further proceedings, if necessary, and enter a written order consistent with this opinion.
FARMER and STEVENSON, JJ. and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Senior Judge, concur. . Unfortunately, the record before us does not contain a transcript of the contempt hearing.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. Brown, 658 So. 2d 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…r ground for reversal of the contempt order is that the trial court did not make any finding that Brown’s failure to pay court-ordered child support was willful. Zebracki v. Zebracki, 648 So. 2d 850, 850-51 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Washburn v. Washburn, 647 So. 2d 1044, 1045 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Cummins, 615 So. 2d at 175. Further, the purge provision of the order was improper because it did not allow Brown to purge himself of the civil contempt after incarceration. We have held similar provisions invalid. Se…
-
Bruce v. State, 656 So. 2d 557 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)…627 So. 2d 1258 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1993); Paul v. Johnson, 604 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Furthermore, a civil contempt order must include a finding that the alleged contemnor has the ability to purge him or herself. See e.g., Washburn v. Washburn, 647 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Haymon v. Haymon, 640 So. 2d 1204 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994); Baird v. Baird, 629 So. 2d 1075 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). The contempt order in this case fails in both respects. Therefore, the petition for writ of habeas corpus is granted and…
-
E.S. Rubin v. Rubin, 774 So. 2d 778 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000)…order appealed in all respects, except one. We reverse that portion of the order finding E.S. Rubin in contempt because the trial court failed to [*779] make a specific finding that the former husband’s conduct was willful. See Washburn v. Washburn, 647 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART. WARNER, C.J., GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)
- Commonwealth Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Moshe Tubero, 569 So. 2d 1271 (Fla. 1990)
- Connolly v. Connolly, 543 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)