RICHARDO ESCRIBANO, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHELLE COVIELLO, 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 a contempt finding for child support arrearages is improper when the underlying support order is not clear and definite regarding the amount owed, and the purge amount is not realistically payable.
Appellant was found in civil contempt for failure to pay child support. The only order presented required support pursuant to guidelines, but did not …
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 Child Support Guidelines cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the order finding Appellant in civil contempt and setting a purge amount for his failure to pay child support. Appellant argues that there was never an order entered requiring him to pay a stated sum of support. The only order provided to this court represents that the parties agreed that support would be pursuant to the guidelines. See § 61.30, Fla. Stat. (1995).1
To obtain a guidelines amount of support the statute requires the consideration of several factors, including the parties’ incomes and deductions. See Section 61.30(2) & (3), Fla. Stat. (1995). Accordingly, we find this reference to the guidelines insufficient to support a contempt finding as it is not clear and definite so as to make Appellant aware of his obligation. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Lawrence, 384 So. 2d 279, 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980). In fact, we note that the trial court’s contempt order does not reference any underlying support order. We also reverse the trial court’s finding that Appellant has the ability to pay the purge amount. Such finding does not take into account that the purge amount provided would absorb nearly all of Appellant’s income. See Campbell v. Campbell, 679 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).
STONE, C.J., and STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur. . Appellee did not file an answer brief or appendix.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morrow v. Frommer, 913 So. 2d 1195 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…(Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (holding that a determination by the trial court of a clear and definite amount for support is necessary in establishing a party’s ability to pay and in enforcing the obligation in future proceedings), and Escribano v. Coviello, 698 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (settlement agreement which merely states that child support obligation would be according to the guidelines was not clear and definite enough to apprise father of his obligation). The father in this case argues that the child s…
-
McMULLAN v. McMULLAN, 710 So. 2d 1045 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)…s v. Brooks, 678 So. 2d 1368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Goosby v. Goosby, 614 So. 2d 692 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). We also note that an order which is not clear and definite is insufficient to support enforcement or contempt proceedings. Escribano v. Coviello, 698 So. 2d 934 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Thompson v. Plowmaker, 681 So. 2d 727 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). We therefore reverse the final judgment and the order denying the husband’s motion for a stay, and remand to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this…
-
In re Standard Jury Instructions IN Civil Case-Report NO. 12-01, 130 So. 3d 596 (Fla. 2013)…ruction to be given when it is alleged that a driver was comparatively negligent for not wearing a seat belt. Different factual situations may require that different portions of F.S. 316.614, be read or paraphrased. See Ridley v. Safety Kleen Corp., 698 So. 2d 934 (Fla.1996). MODEL INSTRUCTION NO. 3 Automobile collision; comparative negligence; wrongful death damages; Fabre issue Facts of the hypothetical case: Mary Smith, as personal representative of the estate of John Smith, deceased, has brought an ac…
Authorities Cited
- Lawrence v. Lawrence, 384 So. 2d 279 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Corwin A. Campbell v. Campbell, 679 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)