WILFRED L. BELLVILLE, APPELLANT,
v.
DEBORAH BELLVILLE, 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 appellate court reversed a contempt order against a former husband for failing to pay child support. The court found procedural irregularities, including the lack of an opportunity for the husband to demonstrate inability to pay a purge amount before incarceration and insufficient evidence of his present ability to pay.
Yes, the trial court erred. The former husband was not given an opportunity to show he could not pay the purge amount before incarceration, and there was no support in the record for a finding that he had the present ability to pay.
[1] A contempt order requiring payment of a purge amount and subsequent incarceration is improper without affording the obligor an opportunity to demonstrate an inability to…
[2] A trial court must make an express finding that an obligor has the present ability to pay a purge amount before ordering incarceration for failure to pay.
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“Most importantly, the court ordered payment of a “purge” amount of $5,000 within 90 days and required the former husband to be incarcerated at the end of the 90-day period without giving the former husband an opportunity, prior to incarceration, to show that he had been unable to pay the purge amount.”
Highlights a key procedural defect in the contempt order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court found the former husband in contempt for failing to pay child support, ordering him to pay a $5,000 purge amount within 90 days and fa…
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 Amount cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We reverse the order on appeal finding the former husband in contempt for failing to pay child support and ordering the husband to pay costs and attorney’s fees. The trial court’s order suffers from a number of procedural irregularities. Most importantly, the court ordered payment of a “purge” amount of $5,000 within 90 days and required the former husband to be incarcerated at the end of the 90-day period without giving the former husband an opportunity, prior to incarceration, to show that he had been unable to pay the purge amount. Significantly, the trial court did not expressly find that the former husband had the present ability to pay the purge amount; rather, based on the trial court’s assessment of what the former husband could probably earn if he were industrious during the purge period, the trial court found that the former husband would have the ability to pay the purge amount at some point within that 90-day period. Our review of the record shows no support for a finding that the husband had the present ability to pay the purge amount.
The order of contempt on appeal must be reversed. See Gregory v. Rice, 727 So. 2d 251 (Fla.1999); Picurro v. Picurro, 734 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Pompey v. Cochran, 685 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.615(d). Furthermore, during the pendency of this appeal, the underlying order setting the former husband’s support obligation has been reversed on appeal and remanded for the trial court to again make a determination of the former husband’s monthly support obligation with specific findings of record evidence to support that determination. See Bellville v. Bellville, 24 Fla. L. Weekly D2339, — So. 2d -, 1999 WL 817884 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct.13, 1999). The contempt order entered against the husband for failing to pay those obligations which since have been vacated on appeal, although they may be reinstated in the future, simply cannot stand.
The contempt order, including the award of costs and attorney’s fees, is REVERSED.
WARNER, C.J., STEVENSON and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wendel v. Wendel, 875 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…- order that was not based on any credible evidence of his ability to pay. “The contempt order entered against the husband for failing to pay those obligations which since have been vacated on appeal ... simply cannot stand.” Bellville v. Bellville, 758 So. 2d 1255, 1256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000). The presumption of the ability to pay normally arising from an outstanding order directing support payments, Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1278 (Fla.1985), is completely undermined by the ruling of this court that there…
Authorities Cited
- Pompey v. Cochran, 685 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Gregory v. Rice, 727 So. 2d 251 (Fla. 1999)
- Picurro v. Picurro, 734 So. 2d 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)