M.G., MOTHER OF L.G., A CHILD, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, 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.
A mother was held in civil contempt for failing to pay court-ordered restitution on behalf of her delinquent juvenile child. The trial court imposed a jail sentence with a purge provision but failed to make the required finding that the mother had the present ability to pay the purge amount, requiring reversal and remand.
The court reversed and remanded, holding that incarceration for civil contempt cannot be imposed absent a finding by the trial court that the contemnor has the present ability to purge themselves of contempt.
[1] A finding that a contemnor has the present ability to pay a purge amount is required before incarceration for civil contempt can be imposed.
[2] Failure to appeal a civil contempt order waives objections to the nature of that 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“incarceration for civil contempt cannot be imposed absent a finding by the trial court that the contemnor has the present ability to purge himself of contempt”
Establishes the mandatory requirement for a finding of present ability to pay before imposing incarceration in civil contempt cases.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceM.G.'s juvenile child was adjudicated delinquent and placed on community control with a court order for both the child and mother to pay $1,070 in res…
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 Adjudication Of Delinquency cases and more on FLexlaw
LAWRENCE, Judge.
M.G. (Appellant), is the mother of L.G., a juvenile who was adjudicated delinquent on various charges and placed on community control.
The trial court ordered both the juvenile and Appellant to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $1,070, payable at a rate of $15 per month. Appellant failed to make the restitution, payments and on May 23, 1996, was held in civil contempt of court. She was sentenced to thirty days in jail with a purge provision in the amount of $360, but execution of the sentence was stayed until August 6, 1996, then again until September 16, 1996, in order to afford Appellant the opportunity to pay the $360 purge amount. Appellant failed to purge herself of contempt and ultimately served thirty days in jail. No appeal was taken from that order. Appellant was again held in civil contempt on May 20, 1997, for failing to make any payments towards the court-ordered restitution. This second contempt proceeding is the subject of-the instant appeal.
The trial court sentenced Appellant to thirty days in jail with a purge provision in the amount of $320, but failed to make a finding that Appellant had the present ability to pay the purge amount. This, as the State concedes, was error. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1277 (Fla.1985)(holding that “incarceration for civil contempt cannot be imposed absent a finding by the trial court that the eontem-nor has the present ability to purge himself of contempt”). Although the record supports the trial judge’s finding that Appellant willfully failed to pay the court-ordered restitution, we are obliged to reverse and remand for the trial court to determine Appellant’s present ability to pay the purge amount.
Appellant asks this court to construe the first contempt proceeding as criminal in nature, so as to preclude subsequent incarceration in the event the trial court makes a finding that Appellant has the present ability to pay the purge amount. We decline to do so. The order on the first contempt proceeding clearly reflects an adjudication for civil contempt and we cannot in the instant proceeding appropriately look beyond its facial validity. Appellant’s objections to the nature of that order are untimely and were waived when no appeal was taken.
REVERSED and REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
MICKLE and DAVIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sullivan v. Sullivan, 54 So. 3d 520 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010)…sband, warrants an imposition of the sanction of appellate attorney’s fees pursuant to section 57.105. First, a contemnor’s objections to the nature of a prior civil contempt order are untimely and are waived when no appeal is taken. M.G. v. State, 711 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). As stated, former husband failed to timely seek review of the first order finding him in contempt. Further, the trial court has inherent jurisdiction to enforce its own orders. Gil v. Mendelson, 870 So. 2d 825, 826 (Fla. 3d DCA…
-
Cave v. Colon-Cave, 117 So. 3d 39 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See Betancourt v. Estate of Misdraji, 13 So. 3d 489 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009); Ferguson v. Ferguson, 921 So. 2d 796 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006); M.G. v. State, 711 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998); Smith v. State, 685 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996). GRIFFIN, LAWSON and COHEN, JJ., concur.…
-
Mollie W. McKINNON v. Weinstein, 125 So. 3d 1014 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)…band was not entitled to evidentiary hearing, on petition to modify alimony where he failed to demonstrate substantial change in circumstances since entry of a prior order denying modification of alimony from which he did not appeal); M.G. v. State, 711 So. 2d 1377 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (holding that mother’s failure to appeal prior contempt order precluded her challenge to prior order in appeal from later order entered based upon prior contempt order). Because McKinnon did not appeal from the injunction order…
Authorities Cited
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)