GARY STUART DENNIS ISRAEL, APPELLANT,
v.
BETH A. ISRAEL, 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.
In a post-dissolution family law matter, the former husband appealed a contempt of court order for failure to pay spousal support. The appellate court reversed the contempt finding, holding that the trial court's order lacked competent evidence that the husband had the present ability to pay the required support amounts.
The court reversed the contempt order, holding that although evidence suggested the husband dissipated his business assets, the evidence did not establish that he retained a present ability to pay the required support amounts. The receiver order also precluded the former husband's access to any remaining business funds for payment purposes.
[1] A finding of willful contempt for non-payment of support requires competent evidence in the record establishing the obligor's present ability to pay.
[2] Evidence of dissipation of a business does not, in itself, establish a present ability to pay outstanding support obligations.
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“Although there is testimony which if believed by the trial court would support a finding that the husband dissipated his formerly successful men's retail clothing business by discounting the merchandise, paying off his creditors, and going out of business, the evidence did not establish that the husband was left with assets from which he retained a present ability to pay the unpaid ongoing support amounts or the purge amount set in the order.”
This establishes the core holding that while dissipation of assets may be proven, a contempt finding requires proof of present ability to pay
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband operated a men's retail clothing business that had been successful. He allegedly dissipated the business by discounting merchandise…
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 Support cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Gary Stuart Dennis Israel (the former husband) appeals from a nonfinal order of the Broward County circuit court dated March 26, 2002, entered in post-dissolution proceedings, finding him to be in willful contempt and ordering his incarceration. This court already granted his petition for writ of habeas corpus, ordering his release from incarceration pursuant to the same contempt order, based on this court’s determination that the order lacked factual support for the trial court’s findings on his ability to pay. See Israel v. Jenne, 814 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002).
The former husband now asks this court to reverse the order adjudicating him in contempt, arguing that there was no competent evidence in the record to support the trial court’s finding that he had the ability to pay either the ongoing support amounts or the purge amount. We agree, having reviewed the transcript of the contempt hearing. Although there is testimony which if believed by the trial court would support a finding that the husband dissipated his formerly successful men’s retail clothing business by discounting the merchandise, paying off his creditors, and going out of business, the evidence did not establish that the husband was left with assets from which he retained a present ability to pay the unpaid ongoing support amounts or the purge amount set in the order. See Coogan v. Coogan, 662 So. 2d 1380, 1381 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Moreover, the trial court’s earlier order appointing the former wife as receiver of the business contained language which precluded the former husband’s access to any funds still remaining in the business for the purpose of making such payments.
Accordingly, the order is reversed.
POLEN, C.J., FARMER and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Coogan v. Polly O'Brien Coogan, 662 So. 2d 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)
- Israel v. Jenne, 814 So. 2d 1215 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)