TODD NADRICH, APPELLANT,
v.
RENEE NADRICH, 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 husband appeals from a contempt order for non-payment of temporary alimony and support. The trial court imposed an equitable lien on his post-separation homestead and an income deduction order. The appellate court reverses the lien and income deduction order but affirms the contempt finding, requiring more particularized evidence and statutory compliance on remand.
The court affirmed the contempt finding but reversed the equitable lien and income deduction order, holding that the trial court failed to make sufficient particularized findings that the homestead was used as an instrument of fraud and that the income deduction order violated federal and state wage garnishment statutes. The court remanded for reconsideration with additional evidence and specific findings.
[1] An equitable lien may be imposed on a separately purchased homestead if it is used as an instrument of fraud or to escape a support obligation, requiring specific factual…
[2] An income deduction order must comply with statutory limitations on the amount that can be deducted from an individual's net pay.
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“held him in contempt for refusing, while able to do so, to comply with past orders for the payment of temporary alimony, support and attorney's fees”
Describes the core basis for the contempt finding that was affirmed on appeal
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe husband refused to comply with court orders for temporary alimony, support, and attorney's fees payments. He purchased a separate homestead for hi…
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 Income Deduction Order cases and more on FLexlaw
FARMER, C.J.
A husband appeals from an omnibus pretrial order that, among other things, held him in contempt for refusing, while able to do so, to comply with past orders for the payment of temporary alimony, support and attorney’s fees. Among its several provisions, the order imposed an equitable lien on a separate homestead, purchased by the husband for himself after the parties separated, and an income deduction order. These remedies were premised on the trial court’s conclusion that he was attempting to hide income and assets so as to defeat or reduce any required alimony.
We reverse the equitable lien and the income deduction order. In reversing these two aspects of the order, by no means do we intend to foreclose the use of such remedies in this case. We simply require more pointed evidence, accompanied by specific factual findings for the equitable lien, and the adjustment of any income deduction order to an amount that on its face will fit within the statutes.
We affirm on all other issues.
As for the equitable lien, there is certainly some evidence from which a court might begin to justifiably compare his conduct to Gepfrich v. Gepfrich, 582 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (forced sale of man’s homestead proper where it was used to defraud former spouse and avoid payment of marital judgment debt to her).
Here, however, the court did not make any finding that the husband is using the newly acquired homestead itself as an “instrument of fraud” or as a means to escape his support obligation to his wife. While the trial court expressly relied on Sibley v. Sibley, 833 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002), this record lacks the particularized evi dence and findings detailed there, except perhaps for an “adamant” refusal to produce the financial information the court had several times ordered produced. On remand, to reconsider the imposition of an equitable lien, the court may receive additional evidence and should make specific findings.
As for the income deduction order, it purports to take $4,930 out of the husband’s net pay of $3,262 from his new employer, which — apart from the mathematical problem — violates both the federal and state statutes on wage garnishments and income deduction orders. 15 U.S.C. § 1673(b); § 61.1301(l)(b), Fla. Stat. (2003).
POLEN and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
De Diego v. Barrios, 271 So. 3d 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…e of conduct supporting the application of the judicially created exception to the constitutional homestead protection, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing an equitable lien on the marital home. See Nadrich v. Nadrich, 872 So. 2d 994, 995- 96 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004) (“[T]he court did not make any finding that the husband is using the newly acquired homestead itself as an ‘instrument of fraud’ or as a means to escape his support obligation to his wife. . . . [T]his record lacks th…
Authorities Cited
- Gepfrich v. Gepfrich, 582 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Montgomery Blair Sibley v. Sibley, 833 So. 2d 847 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002)