HARVEY LOVEJOY, APPELLANT,
v.
DELILAH DEE POOLE, 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.
Harvey Lovejoy appealed the trial court's denial of his motion to enforce child support arrearages against Delilah Poole. The Florida appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing and in incorrectly applying the standing doctrine from a prior case.
The court reversed, holding that Lovejoy did not lack standing to enforce pre-majority child support arrearages and that the trial court erred in denying the motion without an evidentiary hearing. If the court intended to rely on affirmative defenses such as laches or equitable estoppel, those require factual proof at an evidentiary hearing.
[1] A trial court errs in denying a motion to enforce pre-majority child support arrearages without an evidentiary hearing.
[2] Standing to enforce pre-majority child support arrearages is not at issue when the motion seeks to collect payments owed before the children reached the age of majority.
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“The only reference to standing in Pyne related to enforcement of post-majority child support arrearages. Here, Lovejoy sought to enforce pre-majority child support arrearages. Thus, standing is not at issue in this case.”
The court's holding that the standing doctrine from Pyne does not apply to pre-majority child support arrearages
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLovejoy and Poole had two children together without marriage. In 1997, Lovejoy was designated the primary residential parent and Poole was ordered to …
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
Harvey Lovejoy appeals the denial of his motion seeking to enforce child support arrearages owed by Delilah Poole. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing. We reverse.
■ Lovejoy and Poole never married but had two children together. In 1997, Love-joy was designated the primary residential parent of the children. Poole was ordered to pay child support in addition to arrears owed. In 2001, -the court again established arrearages, ordered Poole to pay child support until the children reached the age of eighteen, and ordered her to contribute to Lovejoy’s attorney’s fees and costs.
In 2016, Lovejoy moved for civil contempt/enforcement. He alleged that Poole had not made any payments for child support, arrearages, or ordered attorney’s fees since the stipulated final judgment was entered in 1997.1 Lovejoy also claimed that Poole concealed her address and employment information from him. The trial court denied the motion without a hearing and without explanation, citing Pyne v. Black, 650 So.2d 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Lovejoy moved for reconsideration, but the court summarily denied the motion. In its entirety, the order stated, “Denied. Lack of Standing. See Pyne v. Black.”
In Pyne, .this Court affirrqed the denial of a motion for contempt that sought to collect child support arrears; the motion was denied after an evidentiary hearing. 650 So.2d at 1074. The majority agreed with the trial court that the wife’s attempt to collect child support twelve years after the husband stopped paying and four years after the youngest child turned eighteen years old was barred by equitable estoppel and laches. Id. The panel also agreed that the wife lacked standing to collect post-majority child support. Id.2
Here, the trial court erred in relying on Pyne to deny Lovejoy’s motion. In particular, the court erred in denying the motion for reconsideration based on a finding that Lovejoy lacked standing to pursue his claim. The only reference to standing in Pyne related to enforcement of post-majority child support arrearages. Id. at 1074, 1076. Here, Lovejoy sought to enforce pre-majority child support arrearag-es. Thus, standing is not at issue in this case. See Gibson v. Bennett, 561 So.2d 565, 572 (Fla. 1990) (“[A] judgment for support arrearages is enforceable by contempt pro*166ceedings after a child has reached the age of majority.”).
In addition, unlike the instant case, the trial court in Pyne held an evi-dentiary hearing. 650 So.2d at 1074. Assuming that the trial court here relied on either laches or equitable estoppel in denying Lovejoy’s motion for contempt, absent an evidentiary hearing, that was error. Laches may bar an equitable claim of enforcement, but it is an affirmative defense dependent upon the facts of each case. See Jackmore v. Jackmore, 71 So.3d 912, 913 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011) (“Laches ... is an affirmative defense that must be proven by facts about both the plaintiffs and the defendant’s conduct, and is not established merely by the passage of an inordinate period of time.” (citing Bethea v. Langford, 45 So.2d 496 (Fla. 1949))). Moreover, Poole would be required to demonstrate prejudice from Lovejoy’s delay in filing the motion. See Bishop v. Bishop, 858 So.2d 1234, 1238 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003). And, to successfully assert the defense of equitable estoppel, Poole would bear the burden of establishing its elements by clear and convincing evidence. See Goodwin v. Blu Murray Ins. Agency, Inc., 939 So.2d 1098, 1103 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006) (citing Watson Clinic, LLP v. Verzosa, 816 So.2d 832, 834 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)). Thus, the trial court erred in denying Lovejoy’s motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. Accordingly, we reverse.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
COHEN, C.J., ORFINGER and WALLIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Alcalde v. Alcalde, 340 So. 3d 529 (Fla. 3d DCA 2022)…1 Defendants have a high burden to succeed on the affirmative defense of laches. As this Court previously explained: 4 issues relating to the enforcement of child support generally require an evidentiary hearing. See, e.g., Lovejoy v. Poole, 230 So. 3d 164, 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017); Niblack v. State, Dep’t of Revenue, Off. of Child Support Enf’t ex rel. Bacon, 959 So. 2d 358, 359 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007). Therefore, we reverse and remand for the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing on the issues of…
-
Am. Platinum Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Swank (Fla. 5th DCA 2022)…d to be argued on appeal must be part of that presentation” (quoting Tillman v. State, 471 So. 2d 32, 35 (Fla. 1985))). Further, a party asserting equitable estoppel must prove its elements by clear and convincing evidence. See Lovejoy v. Poole, 230 So. 3d 164, 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017). Here, American adduced no evidence to support this argument. For these reasons, I vote to affirm. But Swank’s trial counsel should take no pride in this disposition or my explanation for joining it. Lawyers have a d…
-
Thilloy v. Ciccone-Capri (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…odification. The trial court’s resolution of these legal issues is reviewed de novo. Rocha v. Mendonca, 35 So. 3d 973, 976 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010) (de novo standard of review applicable to contracts and marital settlement agreements); Lovejoy v. Poole, 230 So. 3d 164, 166 (Fla. 5th DCA 2017) (summary determination regarding laches without an evidentiary hearing is legal error). The trial court’s order of contempt is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Carter v. Hart, 240 So. 3d 863, 865 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018). An…
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
- Gibson v. Bennett, 561 So. 2d 565 (Fla. 1990)
- Bethea v. Langford, 45 So.2d 496 (Fla. 1949)
- Watson Clinic, LLP v. Vicente Verzosa, M.D., 816 So. 2d 832 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)
- Goodwin v. BLU Murray Ins. Agency, Inc., 939 So. 2d 1098 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)
- Pyne v. Black, 650 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Bishop v. Bishop, 858 So. 2d 1234 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003)
- Jackmore v. Jackmore, 71 So. 3d 912 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)