HOWARD HALPERN, APPELLANT,
v.
RONNIE S. HALPERN, 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 contempt order is reversed because it failed to state the husband had the ability to pay the ordered amounts and because he was held in contempt for failing to pay bills he was not ordered to pay.
[1] A contempt order for failure to make payments must recite that the obligor had the ability to make the payments or previously had the ability to comply but divested himse…
[2] A party cannot be held in contempt for failing to comply with an obligation not imposed by the underlying court order.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 husband in contempt for failing to pay medical bills and for failing to obtain a major medical policy. The contempt order di…
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 Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
We reverse the decision of the trial court ratifying the report of the general master and finding the husband in contempt of court, with a sentence of ninety days in the county stockade. The contempt order fails to recite that the husband had the ability to make the payments which are the subject of the contempt proceeding, or that he previously had the ability to comply but divested himself of that ability through fault or neglect designed to frustrate the purpose and intent of the order. Garo v. Garo, 347 So. 2d 418 (Fla.1977); Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla.1976); and Failla v. Failla, 379 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
We note additional error. The order of the trial court finds the husband to be in contempt of court for failing to pay medical bills of his children. Although we recognize the husband has failed to obtain a major medical policy as required by the provisions of the final judgment, we find that the final judgment did not obligate the husband to pay all medical bills, but rather required him to pay “all major medical and all dental bills not covered by the major medical policy. . . The husband was therefore held in contempt for failing to do something he was not ordered to do by the final judgment.
For these reasons, the decision of the trial court is reversed.
Opinion filed June 25, 1980.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1976)
- Garo v. Garo, 347 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 1977)
- Charles v. Failla, 379 So. 2d 1329 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)