TONY ROMERO, APPELLANT,
v.
CARLA ROMERO, 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 this post-dissolution child support enforcement case, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court's contempt order against the former husband for nonpayment of child support arrearages, but reversed and remanded portions concerning vehicle attachment and attorney's fees because the written order failed to conform to the court's oral pronouncements.
The appellate court affirmed the contempt order itself, but reversed and remanded the portions requiring both vehicle surrender and the $4,000 purge payment (clarifying that these were alternative methods, not cumulative requirements) and reversed the attorney's fees award because the circuit court had not yet determined entitlement to such fees at the time of the written order.
[1] A contempt order is affirmed when the circuit court properly determines a party's failure to pay child support arrearages and future obligations.
[2] A written contempt order must accurately reflect the circuit court's oral pronouncements regarding purge conditions.
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“the circuit court, during the contempt hearing, intended for Mr. Romero to purge the court's contempt by one of three methods: (1) paying a purge amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000); (2) surrendering his vehicle to the Sheriffs Office to be sold in accordance with law; or (3) serving a sentence of time if he is unable to purge the contempt by one of the above two methods within thirty (30) days of the contempt hearing”
Establishes that the purge options were alternative, not cumulative, and that the written order misrepresented the court's actual oral ruling
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTony Romero was ordered to pay child support and arrearages pursuant to a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He failed to pay the court-ordere…
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 Order cases and more on FLexlaw
CORTINAS, Judge.
This appeal arises out of post-dissolution proceedings wherein the circuit court entered a contempt order against the former husband, Tony Romero, for failure to pay previous court-ordered child support ar-rearages and for failure to pay further child support obligations pursuant to the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The circuit court ordered Mr. Romero to pay a purge amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000) to the State of Florida Disbursement Unit on or before thirty (30) days from the date of the contempt hearing to avoid incarceration. The circuit court also ordered a writ of attachment for Mr. Romero’s vehicle and ordered that the proceeds from the sale be applied to pay any liens on the vehicle with the balance going toward Mr. Romero’s child support arrearages. The court’s written order concluded that former wife, Carla Romero, was entitled to attorney’s fees and that the court would reserve jurisdiction to determine the amount of attorney’s fees and costs.
We affirm the circuit court’s contempt order entered against Mr. Romero, but we reverse and remand those portions of the order which attached Mr. Romero’s vehicle and awarded attorney’s fees to Ms. Romero.
The transcript of proceedings before the circuit court demonstrates that the court did not determine Ms. Romero’s entitlement to attorney’s fees. Instead, the record reflects that the circuit court, at the contempt hearing, ruled that it would continue the issues of attorney’s fees and costs, including entitlement, until a later time in order to provide Mr. Romero with an opportunity to review Ms. Romero’s financial affidavit. Since the written contempt order failed to conform to the circuit court’s oral pronouncements, we reverse and remand the portion of the order dealing with attorney’s fees to the circuit court to determine Ms. Romero’s entitlement to attorney’s fees. See Lazy Flamingo, USA Inc. v. Greenfield, 834 So. 2d 413, 415 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)(citing Knott v. Knott, 395 So. 2d 1196, 1198 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)).
The record further indicates that the circuit court, during the contempt hearing, intended for Mr. Romero to purge the court’s contempt by one of three methods: (1) paying a purge amount of four thousand dollars ($4,000); (2) surrendering his vehicle to the Sheriffs Office to be sold in accordance with law; or (3) serving a sentence of time if he is unable to purge the contempt by one of the above two methods within thirty (30) days of the contempt hearing. However, the circuit court’s written contempt order required Mr. Romero to both surrender his vehicle and pay four thousand dollars ($4,0,00) to purge the contempt. Since the written contempt order failed to accurately reflect the circuit court’s oral rulings, we reverse and remand to the circuit court. See id.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Cancino v. Cancino, 273 So. 3d 122 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)
-
Pineiro v. LAW Firm OF Franklin & Criscuolo & Rigoberto Pineiro, 976 So. 2d 1146 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…. We affirm the trial court’s denial of Pineiro’s motion but remand the case to the trial court with instructions to amend the order to reflect its oral ruling reserving jurisdiction to hear both parties’ section 57.105 claims. See Romero v. Romero, 916 So. 2d 952 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (reverse and remand portions of written order that did not reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncements). STONE and MAY, JJ., concur.…
-
Hampton Manor, Inc. v. Fortner, 141 So. 3d 1260 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)…ms that were not completed. Notice by your counsel that that has been done will be sufficient. To the extent there is a conflict between the oral pronouncement and the written order, it is the oral pronouncement that controls. See Romero v. Romero, 916 So. 2d 952, 954 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (“Since the written contempt order failed to accurately reflect the circuit court’s oral rulings, we reverse and remand to the circuit court.”); Xavier J. Fernandez, P.A. v. Sun Bank of Tampa Bay, 670 So. 2d 1106, 1107 (Fla.…
Authorities Cited
- Knott v. Knott, 395 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Lazy Flamingo v. Greenfield, 834 So. 2d 413 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)