MICHAEL RATNER, APPELLANT,
v.
AUDREY RATNER, 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.
The Third District Court of Appeal reversed a contempt order against Michael Ratner for failure to pay his ex-wife's attorneys' fees, holding that a contempt finding requires an affirmative judicial determination of the defendant's financial ability to pay, which was lacking in the trial court's order.
A contempt order for refusing to obey a court order must be based on an affirmative finding that the defendant has the ability to obey the order, and such finding must appear on the face of the order of commitment; the trial court's contempt order was void because it contained no such finding and the court should have taken testimony regarding the respondent's financial ability to pay before finding contempt.
[1] A contempt order for refusing to obey a court order must be based on an affirmative finding that the defendant has the ability to comply with the order.
[2] A finding of financial ability to pay must appear on the face of a contempt order of commitment, otherwise the order is void.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“It is well established that a contempt order for refusing to obey an order of the court must be based on an affirmative finding that it is within the power of the defendant to obey the order and such finding must be made to appear on the face of the order of commitment, else it is void.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard that a contempt order requires an affirmative finding of ability to comply that must appear in the order itself.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMichael Ratner was granted a divorce on April 13, 1972, with a property settlement requiring him to pay his ex-wife's reasonable attorneys' fees. The …
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 Order Of Commitment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Respondent-appellant seeks review of an order of contempt.
Appellant-respondent, Michael Ratner was granted a dissolution of marriage from his wife, Audrey Ratner, on April 13, 1972. The final judgment incorporated a property settlement which included a provision for payment by respondent of the wife’s attorneys’ fees in a reasonable amount assessed by the chancellor. Thereafter, the chancellor entered an order assessing the wife’s attorneys’ fees in the amount of $2,500. Subsequently, on October 29, 1973, petitioner-appellees, the attorneys of respondent’s ex-wife, filed a motion for order of contempt on their own behalf wherein they sought payment of attorneys’ fees. Respondent filed a response thereto and alleged therein that he was unable to pay at that time. After hearing argument of counsel for the respective parties, the court entered the following order:
“ORDERED as follows:
“1. That the Husband’s Motion to Strike filed this date before this Court be and the same is hereby denied.
“2. That the said Michael Ratner is hereby found to be in willful contempt of the previous Orders of this Court and is hereby sentenced to serve thirty (30) days in the Dade County Jail; provided, however, that the sentence of said thirty (30) days is stayed and the said Michael Ratner may purge himself of this contempt conditioned upon the said Michael Ratner paying unto the law firm of Manners and Amoon, P.A., on or before 5:00 p. m., Thursday, December 6, 1973, the sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.-00), and on or before the 6th day of each month thereafter an additional sum of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00); said monies to be paid to the law firm of Manners and Amoon, P.A., until the total sum of Two Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Dollars ($2,280.00) has been paid to the said law firm as set forth in previous Order of this Court dated April 18, 1973.”
Respondent-appellant appeals therefrom.
On appeal, respondent alleges that the court erred in finding appellant in contempt for failure to pay attorneys’ fees without a specific finding of financial ability to pay. We find this point well taken.
It is well established that a contempt order for refusing to obey an order of the court must be based on an affirmative finding that it is within the power of the defendant to obey the order and such finding must be made to appear on the face of the order of commitment, else it is void. State ex rel. Trezevant v. McLeod, 126 Fla. 229, 170 So. 735 (1936). No such finding of financial ability of the appellant to pay appears on the face of the order in the case sub judice and thus, it is void. The chancellor in the instant case should have taken testimony on the subject of the financial ability of the respondent to pay and then entered a specific finding that the respondent to the rule to show cause has the ability to pay but willfully refuses to comply with the court’s order to pay the attorneys’ fees.
Accordingly, the contempt order herein appealed is reversed. Reversed.