GARY R. GRIFFITH, APPELLANT,
v.
CAROL E. GRIFFITH, 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 family law appeal, the former husband challenges a contempt finding and award of attorney's fees for failure to pay spousal support. The Florida appellate court reversed, finding insufficient evidence of willful non-compliance and holding that the trial court improperly awarded fees for litigating the fee amount and non-recoverable overhead costs.
The court reversed the contempt finding because the evidence did not establish willful non-compliance; reversed the award of fees for litigating the attorney's fee amount because the marital settlement agreement did not expressly authorize 'fees for fees'; and reversed the award of non-recoverable overhead costs including photocopying, postage, parking, and Westlaw expenses.
[1] Contempt for non-payment of support requires a willful refusal to comply with a prior court order.
[2] A party's inability to pay support due to unforeseen financial hardship, such as the cancellation of a consulting contract, may negate the willfulness required for a cont…
Previewing 2 of 5 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“contempt for failure to pay support requires willful refusal to comply with the prior court order”
Establishes the legal standard that willfulness is required for contempt, which the evidence here did not satisfy.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGary Griffith's consulting contract was cancelled, making it difficult for him to meet spousal support obligations under an Agreed Final Judgment. He …
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 Breach Of Marital Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
TAYLOR, J.
Gary R. Griffith (former husband) appeals an order finding him in contempt for non-payment of support and directing him to pay the attorney’s fees and costs of Carol E. Griffith (former wife), including some fees for litigating the amount of the fee and certain office overhead expenses.
We reverse the order finding the former husband in contempt, because the undisputed evidence did not establish willful non-compliance with his support obligations under the Agreed Final Judgment. Rather, the evidence showed that the former husband, whose consulting contract was cancelled, was consistently trying to generate business and heavily borrowing against assets to make the required payments. At most, the evidence showed that the former husband was $168.75 in arrears at the time he was held in contempt. By his calculations, the deficiency was only $7.75. In any event, his minimal noncompliance was not shown to be willful. See Chetram v. Singh, 937 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (contempt for failure to pay support requires willful refusal to comply with the prior court order). The record, however, does support a finding that the former husband breached the marital settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the dissolution decree, by frequently failing to pay in a timely fashion. His breach led to the contempt proceedings and made him liable for attorney’s fees and costs under the terms of the agreement.
We also reverse the order awarding the former wife attorney’s fees for litigating the amount of the attorney’s fee, as this was essentially a contractual award of fees pursuant to the marital settlement agreement. See Mediplex Constr. of Fla., Inc. v. Schaub, 856 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (holding that unless a contractual attorney’s fee provision specifically authorizes “fees for fees,” they are not awarda-ble).
Finally, we reverse the trial court’s cost judgments awarding the former wife her attorney’s non-recoverable overhead costs, i.e., photocopying, postage, parking at the courthouse, and Westlaw expenses. See Mitchell v. Osceola Farms Co., 574 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (holding that photocopy, postage, long-distance telephone calls, travel expenses, courier service, and surveillance film expenses were not taxable as costs); Bolton v. Bolton, 412 So. 2d 72, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982) (holding that office expenses of counsel are not recoverable as costs).
Reversed and Remanded
STEVENSON, C.J., and WARNER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alpha McDONALD v. Veron Browne-McDONALD, 125 So. 3d 833 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…d affirmatively attempted to comply with the New York divorce order by his numerous, yet unsuccessful, attempts at refinancing the Florida home. Thus, the circuit court’s order also must be reversed under a contempt theory. See Griffith v. Griffith, 941 So. 2d 1285, 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (“We reverse the order finding the former husband in contempt, because the undisputed evidence did not establish willful non-compliance with his support obligations under the Agreed Final Judgment.”); Rubin v. Rubin, 78 A.D…
-
Lewis v. Thunderbird Manor, Inc., 60 So. 3d 1182 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011)…915 So. 2d 612, 616-17 (Fla.2005), does not list postage as a taxable cost. Therefore, we reverse the taxation of costs for postage. Generally, copies, like postage, are part of the attorney’s nonrecoverable office expenses. Griffith v. Griffith, 941 So. 2d 1285, 1286 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (citing Bolton v. Bolton, 412 So. 2d 72, 73 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Mitchell v. Osceola Farms Co., 574 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)); Robbins v. McGrath, 955 So. 2d 638, 635 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007). The guidelines allow for taxa…
-
Dmyant Singh Sangha v. Riedel (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Mediplex Constr. OF Fla., Inc. v. Schaub, 856 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)
- Mitchell v. Osceola Farms Co., 574 So. 2d 1162 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)
- Chetram v. Saraswattee Singh, 937 So. 2d 716 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Bolton v. Bolton, 412 So. 2d 72 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982)