WILLIAM I. ZDRAVKOVIC, APPELLANT,
v.
NANCY G. ZDRAVKOVIC, 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 consolidated appeal involving contempt proceedings for failure to pay alimony and child support, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of appellant's motion to enforce a settlement agreement but reversed the trial court's modification of the general master's contempt findings regarding the purge amount and arrearage payments, holding that the trial court improperly deviated from the master's recommendations without sufficient findings of ability to pay.
The trial court erred in deviating from the master's factual findings and recommendations without clear evidence that they were unsupported or erroneous. The trial court's increased purge amount of $10,000 lacked an adequate finding of ability to pay, and the amended finding of ability to comply was insufficient to allow incarceration. The case is remanded for the trial court to adopt the master's original findings and recommendations.
[1] A trial court is bound by a master's factual findings and recommendations unless they are clearly unsupported by the evidence and clearly erroneous.
[2] A trial court cannot increase a purge amount for contempt without an attendant finding of the ability to pay the increased amount.
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 trial court is bound by a master's factual findings and recommendations unless they are clearly unsupported by the evidence and clearly erroneous”
Establishes the standard of review for a trial court's adoption or modification of a master's findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellant failed to pay alimony and child support. A general master found appellant in contempt and determined he possessed the ability to pay $3,…
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 Purge Provision cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This consolidated appeal follows proceedings for contempt on appellant’s failure to pay alimony and child support. In case no. 94 — 1232, we summarily affirm the order denying appellant’s motion to enforce a settlement agreement. In case no. 94r-2702, appellant has demonstrated error, and we reverse as set forth below.
The parties went before a general master on appellee’s motion for contempt. The general master found appellant in contempt of court and specifically found that appellant possessed the ability to pay $3500. The master recommended appellant be incarcerated, but provided that appellant could purge himself of the contempt by payment of $3500. The master also recommended that the trial court order appellant to pay $400 bi-weekly towards the arrearages of alimony and child support.
Subsequently, appellee filed a motion to adopt the master’s findings and recommendations, The trial court entered an order ratifying the report of the general master, but increased the purge amount to $10,000 without an attendant finding of ability to pay and lowered the arrearage payment to $250 bi-weekly. The trial court’s deviation constituted error because “[a] trial court is bound by a master’s factual findings and recommendations unless they are clearly unsupported by the evidence and clearly erroneous.” See Linn v. Linn, 523 So. 2d 642, 643 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 534 So. 2d 400 (Fla.1988). The trial court thereafter amended the order to include a finding that appellant had “the present ability to comply with the purge provision of Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) or voluntarily divested himself of the ability to pay said purge.” The amended finding does not constitute an express finding of ability to comply with the purge condition and therefore is not sufficient to allow incarceration. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985); Galligher v. Galligher, 648 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Ugarte v. Ugarte, 608 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
Accordingly, we reverse the purge amount and the arrearage payment set forth in the trial court’s amended order ratifying the master’s report. The evidence presented below supports the findings and recommendations of the general master. We therefore direct the trial court on remand to adopt the master’s finding that appellant possessed the ability to purge himself of contempt by payment of $3500 as well as his recommendations as to the purge amount and the arrear-age payment. See Linn.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED.
GLICKSTEIN, DELL and FARMER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Garcia v. Garcia, 743 So. 2d 1225 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…or fact-finding and to recommend disposition of pending issues, the trial court is bound by the general master’s factual findings unless they are not supported by competent substantial evidence or are clearly erroneous. See Zdravkovie v. Zdravkovic, 684 So. 2d 822, 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Dent v. Dent, 438 So. 2d 903, 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The trial court should approve the master’s factual findings and recommendations unless the master has “misconceived the legal effect of the evidence.” Fodor v. Fodor,…
-
Edwards v. Edwards, 730 So. 2d 711 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…or fact-finding and to recommend disposition of pending issues, the trial court is bound by the general master’s factual findings unless they are not supported by competent substantial evidence or are clearly erroneous. See Zdravkovic v. Zdravkovic, 684 So. 2d 822, 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Dent v. Dent, 438 So. 2d 903, 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). The trial court should approve the master’s factual findings and recommenda [*714] tions unless the master has “misconceived the legal effect of the evidence.” Fodor v.…
-
Giuseppe APA v. Lizzie Love APA, 693 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…divested himself of the ability to pay support is not a sufficient substitute for finding a present ability to pay, a prerequisite to incarceration for civil contempt. Pompey v. Cochran, 685 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Zdravkovic v. Zdravkovic, 684 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Galligher v. Galligher, 643 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 4th [*703] DCA 1994); Campbell v. Campbell, 571 So. 2d 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).1 We note that based on the trial court’s prior experience with this ease either from the divorce trial…
Previewing 3 of 4 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)
- Ugarte v. Ugarte, 608 So. 2d 838 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)
- Caribbean Ship Chandler, Inc. v. Metro. Dade Cnty., 523 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Linn v. Linn, 523 So. 2d 642 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)