SANDRA EPPERSON RICH
v.
JOHN D. RICH
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 must be reversed when the underlying fee award upon which it is based has been previously vacated in a companion appeal.
[1] A contempt order for non-payment of attorneys' fees must be reversed when the underlying fee award has been vacated in a companion appeal.
[2] When a contempt order is reversed due to reversal of its underlying fee award, any payments made pursuant to that order must be reimbursed to the party who made the payme…
Previewing 2 of 2 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSandra Rich was held in contempt for failing to pay attorneys' fees to her former husband John Rich. In prior appeals, this court had reversed the div…
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 Reimbursement cases and more on FLexlaw
NORTHCUTT, Judge.
Sandra Rich challenges an order that held her in contempt because she had not paid attorneys' fees to her former husband, John Rich, in accordance with a prior fee award. We reverse because the underlying rulings upon which the contempt finding was based have been disapproved.
2
In case number 2D20-440, this court reversed aspects of the Riches' divorce judgment and we remanded for a new trial. See Rich v. Rich, 337 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022). Then, in case number 2D19-2721, we reversed an award of attorneys' fees and costs to the former husband because the award was premised on many of the findings that had been reversed in case number 2D20-440. See Rich v. Rich, 346 So. 3d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022). The order on appeal in the instant case held the former wife in contempt for failing to pay the fee award that we set aside in case number 2D19-2721.
As the former husband correctly concedes, the contempt order must be reversed. See Wiesenthal v. Wiesenthal, 154 So. 3d 488, 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing a contempt order after the fee order upon which it was based was reversed in a companion appeal). Having reversed both the fee award and the resulting contempt order, we find no basis for permitting the former husband to retain money paid to him thereunder. See Chopin & Chopin, LP v. Brennan, 178 So. 3d 509, 510-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that a party holding funds paid pursuant to a vacated contempt order must reimburse the funds to the other party). On remand, if the former wife establishes that she has made any payment required by the contempt order or the fee award upon which it was based, she will be "entitled to reimbursement in the amount paid." See id.
Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.
Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rich v. Rich, 337 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)…rd. We reverse because the underlying rulings upon which the contempt finding was based have been disapproved. In case number 2D20-440, this court reversed aspects of the Riches' divorce judgment and we remanded for a new trial. See Rich v. Rich, 337 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022). Then, in case number 2D19- 2721, we reversed an award of attorneys' fees and costs to the former husband because the award was premised on many of the findings that had been reversed in case number 2D20-440. See Rich v. Rich, 3…
-
Rich v. Rich (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…documents she allegedly procured from a dumpster on the private property of the Third-Party Defendants and their accountant." Given our disposition of the parties' related appeal from the final judgment of dissolution,1 we reverse. In Rich v. Rich, 337 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022), this court concluded that the trial court's findings regarding the interpretation of the antenuptial agreement and the admissibility of the "dumpster documents" were erroneous and that a new trial was required. Id. at 147–49. T…1 / 2
-
Maddox v. Maddox (Fla. 2d DCA 2023)…of his finances, the trial court's findings must be supported by competent substantial evidence. See Callwood v. Callwood, 221 So. 3d 1198, 1203 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017); Jordan v. Jordan, 127 So. 3d 794, 796 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013); see also Rich v. Rich, 337 So. 3d 138, 144 n.4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022) (discussing the former husband's failure to comply with discovery obligations and resulting trial court orders compelling discovery, holding the former husband in contempt, and sanctioning the former husband). For these r…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Rich v. Rich, 337 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2024)
- Wiesenthal v. Wiesenthal, 154 So. 3d 488 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)