ANTHONY CALICCHIO, APPELLANT,
v.
AMY CALICCHIO, 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 court held that the husband's appeal of a contempt order for failure to pay temporary alimony was without merit.
The husband appealed an order holding him in contempt for failing to pay temporary alimony. He argued the contempt order was invalid and that he could…
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 Non-Final Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The husband appeals an order holding him in contempt for failure to pay temporary alimony and requiring its payment within 30 days.1 No incarceration has been ordered. We affirm the trial court’s order. The appellant first challenges the order awarding temporary alimony which he did not appeal. He cannot use an order finding him in contempt as a back door to challenging the propriety of the unappealed order awarding alimony. See Driggers v. Pearson, 141 Fla. 256, 192 So. 881 (1940).
In his second argument, he claims that the order of contempt is invalid for failure to state reasons for granting the motion. See § 61.14(5)(a), Fla. Stat. (1995). The order states, “Respondent has disregarded the Court’s order by failing to pay sums he was order [sic] to pay Petitioner in the Court’s order of July 9,1996.” We do not know what more the trial court is expected to state for reasons granting a motion for contempt.
Finally, he claims that the evidence affirmatively demonstrates that he cannot pay the sums due. Unfortunately, there is no transcript of the proceedings before the trial court. Therefore, further consideration of this issue is barred by Applegate v. Barnett Bank of Tallahassee, 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla.1979).
Affirmed.
GLICKSTEIN, WARNER and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur. . Whether this order is an appropriate subject for a non-final appeal has, of late, received attention in our court. See Alves v. Barnett Mortgage Co., 688 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (Farmer, J., specially concurring). We agree that there is a question as to the jurisdictional basis to review this non-final order. However, we have in the past permitted review, citing Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(ii) and (iii). Langbert v. Langbert, 409 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Todd v. Guillaume-Todd, 972 So. 2d 1003 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…ch to live. Unfortunately, this argument is barred on appeal by the lack of a transcript, especially inasmuch as the final judgment suggests that the former husband’s income exceeded that shown on his financial affidavit. See Calicchio v. Calicchio, 693 So. 2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). However, because the child support must be reconsidered for the reasons mentioned above, upon remand the trial court is free to also reconsider the amount of the child support in relation to the former husband’s income and…
-
Battles v. State, 919 So. 2d 621 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006)…unter v. Dennies Contracting Co., 693 So. 2d 615, 616 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) (“[T]hat unap-pealed order is not before us for review, and we do not pass on the merits of either the temporary injunction or the underlying action.”); Calicchio v. Calicchio, 693 So. 2d 1124, 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(“[Appellant] cannot use an order finding him in contempt as a back door to challenging the propriety of the unappealed order awarding alimony.”). Had Battles wished to contest the modification of probation, he should have a…
-
McMULLAN v. McMULLAN, 761 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)…s court with a transcript of the proceedings below or a stipulated statement of the facts pursuant to rule 9.200(b)(4) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, these issues are not sub [*411] ject to appellate review. See Calicchio v. Calicchio, 693 So. 2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Mr. McMullan also claims that the trial court erred in sua sponte amending the final dissolution judgment to add a provision reserving jurisdiction to enforce the dissolution judgment. This claim of error is completely de…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pitcher v. Schneider (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)
- Albert v. Applegate et ux., 377 So. 2d 1150 (Fla. 1979)
- Langbert v. Langbert, 409 So. 2d 1066 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- State ex rel. M. E. Garland v. City of Sarasota, 141 Fla. 256 (Fla. 1940)
- Rediker v. State, 688 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)
- Alves v. Barnett Mortg. Co. & J.J. Kislak Mortg. Corp., 688 So. 2d 459 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Driggers v. Pearson, 141 Fla. 256 (Fla. 1940)