TIMOTHY J. MANKO
v.
LAURIE A. MANKO
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 post-dissolution contempt proceedings involving support obligations, a trial court must determine the defendant's need and ability to pay before awarding attorney's fees under section 61.16, Florida Statutes.
[1] In post-dissolution contempt proceedings involving support or custody obligations, a trial court must determine the defendant's need and ability to pay before awarding at…
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“Because the contempt action arose in the context of a dissolution action, the trial court was required to determine need and ability to pay before imposing this monetary sanction.”
Citation to Hardman v. Koslowski, 107 So. 3d 1246, 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)
Timothy J. Manko appealed a trial court order holding him in contempt and denying his motion to abate support obligations owed to Laurie Manko. The tr…
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 Post-Dissolution Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FIFTH DISTRICT
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO
FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND
DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
TIMOTHY J. MANKO,
Appellant,
v. Case No. 5D18-3883
LAURIE A. MANKO,
Appellee.
________________________________/
Opinion filed July 23, 2019
Appeal from the Circuit Court for Seminole County, Michael J. Rudisill, Judge.
Timothy J. Manko, Deltona, pro se.
No Appearance for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.
Timothy J. Manko appeals the trial court's order holding him in contempt and denying his motion to abate his support obligations owed to Laurie Manko. We affirm the trial court's order save for the award of attorney's fees. We are compelled to reverse the attorney's fees award because the trial court failed to make a determination as to need and ability to pay. See Jones v. Jones, 671 So. 2d 852, 854–55 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (reiterating that trial court must consider need and ability to pay under section 61.16,
2 Florida Statutes, in order to award attorney's fees in post-dissolution contempt proceedings); see also Hardman v. Koslowski, 107 So. 3d 1246, 1248 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013) ("Because the contempt action arose in the context of a dissolution action, the trial court was required to determine need and ability to pay before imposing this monetary sanction." (citing § 61.16(2), Fla. Stat.)); Worthington v. Harty, 677 So. 2d 1371, 1372 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996) ("As chapter 61 is applicable, ability to pay and need must be considered by the court before ordering payment of attorney's fees in contempt proceedings incident to enforcing orders relating to support or custody." (citing Armstrong v. Armstrong, 623 So. 2d 1216, 1218 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993))). Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's order, in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Affirmed, in part; Reversed, in part; and Remanded.
BERGER, EDWARDS and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Armstrong v. Faye Armstrong, 623 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Jones v. Jones, 671 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- Worthington v. Harty, 677 So. 2d 1371 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Hardman v. Koslowski, 107 So. 3d 1246 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)