MICHAEL J. BUCHANAN, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY PULLIAM BUCHANAN, 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 court held that the record lacked competent, substantial evidence of the Former Husband's present ability to pay the purge amount for civil contempt.
The Former Husband was found in civil contempt for failing to pay $10,000 in attorney's fees. The trial court ordered him to pay this amount to purge …
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 Civil Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
SILBERMAN, Judge.
In this postdissolution proceeding, Michael J. Buchanan (the Former Husband) appeals a civil contempt order. Because the record does not contain competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding of the Former Husband’s present ability to pay the $10,000 purge amount, we reverse.
The trial court found the Former Husband in contempt for failure to pay previously ordered attorney’s fees of $10,000 to the attorney for Mary Pulliam Buchanan (the Former Wife). In the contempt order, the trial court further found that the Former Husband had the present ability to pay $10,000, sentenced him to 179 days in jail, and allowed him to purge the contempt and be released from jail with the payment of $10,000.
In order to impose incarceration for civil contempt, the trial court must find “that the contemnor has the present ability to purge himself of contempt.” Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1277 (Fla.1985). Thus, the contemnor must have “the present ability to pay from some available asset[.]” Id. Here, the trial court found that the Former Husband had various assets totaling $14,000 and the present ability to pay $10,000 from those assets. The record does not support this finding.
Most significant is the trial court’s finding that the Former Husband had $9200 available to him in corporate stock. No one at the contempt hearing testified to the value of the Former Husband’s corpo rate stock; rather, the trial court relied on the Former Husband’s corporate tax return to support its finding. A review of the tax return, however, reflects that it lists “[tjotal liabilities and shareholders’ equity” of $9200. The tax return lists the stock value at only $1000.
Thus, the record does not contain competent, substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that the Former Husband had the present ability to pay $10,000. Accordingly, we reverse the contempt order. Reversed.
CASANUEVA and CANADY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Whitby v. Infinity Radio, Inc., 961 So. 2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007)…tial evidence to find an ability to pay. Before a court can enforce an order of contempt, it must first determine, by competent substantial evidence, that the contemnor has the present ability to pay from some available asset. Buchanan v. Buchanan, 932 So. 2d 270 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Politz v. Booth, 910 So. 2d 397, 398 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005). For a coercive fine, the court “must consider the offending party’s financial resources and the seriousness of the burden on that particular party.” Johnson, 573 So. 2d at…
-
Pearson v. Pearson, 932 So. 2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006)…ompetent substantial evidence; however, the appellate court is not bound by a trial court’s conclusions of law. Milian v. State, 764 So. 2d 860, 861 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Buchanan v. Buchanan, 932 So. 2d 270, 2005 WL 2467618 (Fla. 2d DCA Oct. 7, 2005) (reversing a civil contempt order because the appellate record contained no competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding of the contemnor’s ability to pay the purge amount). The tra…
-
Ghassan Mansour v. Dalal Helmi Mansour, 118 So. 3d 978 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)…rial court appears to have valued Mr. Mansour’s interest in the entity based on gross receipts. Gross receipts, however, are an insufficient basis for valuation; the trial court must determine the value of corporate stock. See Buchanan v. Buchanan, 932 So. 2d 270, 270-71 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (reversing contempt order for lack of competent, substantial evidence of ability to pay where corporate tax return was only evidence of value of corporation). “The trial court is bound by the general master’s factual findi…
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)