MARK HOLTZ, APPELLANT,
v.
TAMMY SUE HOLTZ, 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 dissolution of marriage case, the trial court held the former husband in contempt for failing to make child support, alimony, and equitable distribution payments. The appellate court reversed because the contempt order failed to include required statutory findings and improperly attempted to enforce an equitable distribution obligation through contempt power, which is reserved for support and maintenance obligations.
The court reversed the contempt order because it failed to include required statutory findings that the former husband had present ability to pay and willfully failed to comply with the prior court order, and because the trial court improperly invoked its contempt power to enforce an equitable distribution payment, which is a property settlement rather than a support obligation.
[1] A contempt order must contain findings that a prior order was entered, that the alleged contemnor failed to pay, that the alleged contemnor had the present ability to pay…
[2] A contempt order must recite the facts upon which the findings of ability to pay and willful non-compliance are based.
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“An order finding the alleged contemnor to be in contempt shall contain a finding that a prior order of support was entered, that the alleged contemnor has failed to pay part or all of the support ordered, that the alleged contemnor had the present ability to pay support, and that the alleged contemnor willfully failed to comply with the prior court order.”
States the statutory requirements under Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615(d)(1) that the trial court failed to meet.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing entry of a final judgment dissolving the marriage between Mark Holtz (former husband) and Tammy Sue Holtz (former wife), the former wife fil…
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 Motion For Civil Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
This appeal stems from entry of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage between the appellant, former husband, and the appellee, former wife. Subsequent to entry of the final judgment, former wife filed a motion for civil contempt, alleging that former husband failed to make child support payments, alimony payments and an equitable distribution payment, as required by the final judgment. Because the order fails to comply with Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615(d)(1) and improperly holds former husband in contempt for non-payment of an equitable distribution payment, we reverse.
The trial court’s order granting former wife’s motion for contempt recites only the following findings and conclusions:
1. The Former Husband failed to make an equitable distribution payment of $61,158.00 to the Former Wife;
2. The Former Husband failed to pay alimony in the sum of $2500.00 per month to the Former Wife;
3. The Former Husband failed to pay child support in the amount of $771.00 per month to the Former Wife. Thereupon it is
ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
A. The equitable distribution payment of $61,158.00 shall be paid to the Former Wife no later than July 8, 2011;
B. The child support arrearage and alimony arrearage in the amount of $25,146.00 as of June 14, 2011 shall be paid to the Former Wife by July 8, 2011.
C. If the above amounts are not made by July 8, 2011, a Rule to Show Cause Order will be issued by this Court which will result in further penalty including, *458but not limited to, incarceration in the Palm Beach County Jail.
Rule 12.615(d)(1) provides that:
An order finding the alleged contemnor to be in contempt shall contain a finding that a prior order of support was entered, that the alleged contemnor has failed to pay part or all of the support ordered, that the alleged contemnor had the present ability to pay support, and that the alleged contemnor willfully failed to comply with the prior court order. The order shall contain a recital of the facts on which these findings are based.
The trial court failed to make the findings that former husband had the present ability to pay and that he willfully failed to comply with the final judgment. This is grounds for reversal. See, e.g., Orsini v. Orsini, 909 So.2d 558, 560 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (reversing and remanding order finding former husband in contempt because order contained no finding that former husband possessed ability to pay ordered monthly arrearages). Further, the trial court could not use its contempt power to enforce the equitable distribution provision of the final judgment. See Whelan v. Whelan, 736 So.2d 732, 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (“ ‘If an obligation is in the nature of settlement of property rights as opposed to alimony, support or maintenance of one to whom the duty is owed, the contempt power of the court cannot be invoked.’ ”) (quoting Filan v. Filan, 549 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)). Thus, the trial court’s order is reversed.
Reversed.
CIKLIN, J., and WALSH, LISA S., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Brown v. Brown, 210 So. 3d 781 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017)…port. The absence of such a finding warrants reversal “for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to enter an order in compliance with rule 12.615(d)(1).” Trisotto v. Trisotto, 966 So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); accord Holtz v. Holtz, 95 So. 3d 457, 458 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Thus, we reverse and remand for entry of a compliant order. REVERSED and REMANDED with Instructions. SAWAYA and BERGER, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Whelan v. Whelan, 736 So. 2d 732 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)
- Filan v. Filan, 549 So. 2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Orsini v. Helene Orsini, 909 So. 2d 558 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)