ALEXANDER ROBYN
v.
CORINA E. ROBYN
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.
A contempt order for failure to pay court-ordered support is invalid without a purge provision and a finding that the defendant has present ability to purge himself of the contempt.
[1] A contempt order for failure to pay court-ordered support must include both a purge provision and a finding that the defendant has present ability to purge himself of the…
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 intelligenceThe trial court found the former husband in willful contempt for failing to pay $188,000 in court-ordered undifferentiated support. The contempt order…
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 Willful Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The former wife properly concedes that the trial court erred in finding the former husband in willful contempt for failing to pay court ordered undifferentiated support in the amount of $188,000.00 where the contempt order does not contain a purge provision or a finding that the husband has the present ability to purge himself of the contempt. See Sosa v. Portilla, 306 So. 3d 979, 980 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020); Douglas v. Douglas, 485 So. 2d 18, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986). Because we are reversing on this basis, we need not reach the former husband’s argument that the requirement that the $188,000 be paid from the entirety of his salary violates 15 U.S.C. § 1673(b) but we remind the trial court that income deduction orders must comply with section 61.1301, Florida Statutes (2021). See Garcia v. Garcia, 560 So. 2d 403, 404-05 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990).
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ebben v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 783 F.2d 906 (9th Cir. 1986)…ides little guidance for reviewing courts. As the tax court noted in an earlier opinion, the problems of valuation are "more properly suited for the give and take of the settlement process than adjudication.” Buffalo Tool & Die Mfg. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 441, 451-52 (1980). . Taxpayers’ experts valued the agricultural land in the west tract at $650 an acre. On appeal, taxpayers have not contested the IRS’s valuation of $600 an acre. . Several facts supported their appraisal: 1. Land zoned "U” or "unc…
-
Est. OF Thomas L. Kaplin v. Commissioner OF Internal Revenue, 748 F.2d 1109 (6th Cir. 1984)…tioned the petitioner’s for not settling the case by adopting the lowest valuation presented by the government. Petitioners argue that the Tax Court stated that it would adopt such a sanction in Buffalo Tool & Die Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 441 (1980), and that in this case, the Tax Court, without citing Buffalo Tool, was applying that decision. Although one can certainly debate whether Buffalo Tool stands for the proposition that the petitioners claim, it is clear that the Tax Court cann…
Authorities Cited
- Garcia v. Sailly Garcia, 560 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)
- Dubow v. Fla. Elections Comm'n, 485 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)
- Sosa v. Ines Portilla, 306 So. 3d 979 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020)