RONALD SAMUELS, APPELLANT,
v.
HEATHER MARIE GROSSMAN, F/K/A HEATHER MARIE STEPHENS, F/K/A HEATHER MARIE SAMUELS, 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.
Trial court erred in imposing prospective incarceration for non-payment of attorney's fees without first holding a hearing on present ability to pay.
A court cannot impose automatic incarceration for future non-compliance with a payment order without providing a hearing on the obligor's present ability to pay.
[1] A court cannot impose incarceration for civil contempt absent a finding of present ability to purge the contempt and a hearing on ability to pay.
Previewing 1 of 1 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“It is improper to provide for automatic incarceration in the event of future non-compliance with a court order without also providing for an additional hearing on ability to pay.”
Court explaining the legal error in the trial court's order
Appellant was ordered to pay attorney's fees in a November 26, 1997 order that included a provision for prospective incarceration upon non-payment. Ap…
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 Contempt Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
JOANOS, Judge.
The trial court erred in including in the November 26, 1997, order, a provision for prospective incarceration in the event appellant failed to pay the amounts ordered within the time provided, without also providing for a hearing on present ability to pay. We recognize that appellant has been the object of numerous previous contempt proceedings and findings with regard to orders to pay child support and attorney’s fees, and that the court anticipated that appellant might not pay these fees until contempt proceedings are instituted.
However, this was the first time appellant had been ordered to pay these particular attorney’s fees, there had been no motion for contempt with regard to them, and no finding of contempt for failure to pay these amounts. It is improper to provide for automatic incarceration in the event of future non-compliance with a court order without also providing for an additional hearing on ability to pay. See Miller v. Miller, 587 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); see also Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)(court cannot impose incarceration for civil contempt absent finding of present ability to purge of the contempt). The order is REVERSED and REMANDED for further consistent proceedings.
ALLEN and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)
- Miller v. Miller, 587 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)