JEFFERY S. KELLY
v.
NATALIE A. KELLY

Fla. 5th DCA | 2025-07-11
No. 2024-3531
MacIver, J., Eisnaugle, J., Harris, J., Jerald, R. Gregg, J.
2025 FL 5896 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (2025)

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.

Holding

A trial court's contempt order imposing incarceration for failure to pay alimony is facially deficient and must be reversed if it does not include a separate affirmative finding that the contemnor has present ability to comply with the purge amount.

Headnotes

[1] In a civil contempt proceeding for failure to pay alimony, a trial court must include in its order an affirmative finding that the contemnor has the present ability to co…

Previewing 1 of 1 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
Key Quotes

“the trial court may not incarcerate a civil contemnor without an affirmative finding that he has the ability to pay the purge amount”

Citation to Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1280 (Fla. 1985)
Facts & Procedural History

The trial court found Jeffery S. Kelly in contempt for willfully and substantially violating an alimony order to Natalie A. Kelly and ordered him to p…

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.

Opinion of the Court
Harris

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 5D2024-3531 LT Case No. 2019-DR-001197 _____________________________ JEFFERY S. KELLY, Appellant, v. NATALIE A. KELLY, Appellee. _____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Marion County.

R. Gregg Jerald, Judge.

Justin Eisele, of Gagnon Eisele, P.A., Longwood, for Appellant. No Appearance for Appellee. July 11, 2025

MACIVER, J.

The trial court entered an “Order on Motions” which, inter alia, found Appellant, Jeffery S. Kelly (“Former Husband”), to be in contempt for willfully and substantially violating an order to pay alimony to Appellee, Natalie A. Kelly (“Former Wife”), and ordered Former Husband to pay the arrearage within thirty days or face incarceration.

3

EISNAUGLE and HARRIS, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
2 However, the Order on Motions fails to comply with Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615, which governs orders of contempt and sanctions flowing therefrom in support matters. The rule provides that after hearing testimony and evidence, the court shall enter a written order granting or denying the motion for contempt. Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.615(d)(1). In doing so, the trial court may impose appropriate sanctions to obtain compliance with the order including, inter alia, incarceration, provided the order includes “conditions for purge of the contempt, based on the contemnor’s present ability to comply.” Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.615(d)(2) and (e). The order must include “a separate affirmative finding that the contemnor has the present ability to comply with the purge and the factual basis for that finding.” Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.615(e). Here, the Order on Motions meets most of the criteria required by rule 12.615. But the Order on Motions did not include a finding that Former Husband had the present ability to pay the arrearage to purge himself of the contempt. Because the Order on Motions is facially deficient, we reverse that portion of the order imposing incarceration upon Former Husband if he fails to pay the purge amount, and remand to the trial court with instructions to either enter a written order finding that of Former Husband has a present ability to pay the purge amount, or for further proceedings. See Pierce v. Pierce, 18 So. 3d 1074, 1075 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (reversing that portion of the order imposing incarceration upon Mr. Pierce because the trial court failed to make a separate affirmative finding that Mr. Pierce had the present ability to pay $25,000 to purge himself of the contempt); Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1280 (Fla. 1985) (holding that the trial court may not incarcerate a civil contemnor without an affirmative finding that he has the ability to pay the purge amount). The Order on Motions is affirmed in all other respects. AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED with instructions.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw