JAMES LESTER WILLLIAMS, JR.
v.
JAMAI F. SAMUELS
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.
This case involves an appeal of a contempt order for failure to pay attorney's fees in a paternity case. The appellate court reversed and remanded because the lower court failed to make required findings about the appellant's ability to pay and whether the non-payment was willful.
Yes, the circuit court erred. A contempt order requires findings that the party had the ability to comply with the prior order and willfully failed to do so. These findings were absent.
[1] A contempt order for failure to comply with a support or fee obligation must include express findings that the contemnor had the present ability to comply with the prior…
[2] If a contempt order includes incarceration as a sanction, the order must contain a separate affirmative finding that the contemnor has the present ability to comply with…
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 intelligence“As such, the circuit court was required to include findings regarding Mr. Williams' ability to comply with the court's prior order and that he willfully failed to do so.”
Establishes the legal requirement for findings in a contempt order.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJames Lester Williams, Jr. was held in contempt by the circuit court for failing to pay an attorney's fee award. The contempt order did not include fi…
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 Failure To Comply cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM. James Lester Williams, Jr. appeals the circuit court's order holding him in contempt for failing to pay an attorney's fee award in a paternity case. Although the order does not include an express incarcerative direction, it is clearly a contempt order. As such, the circuit court was required to include findings regarding Mr. Williams' ability to comply with the court's prior order and that he willfully failed to do so. See Trisotto v. Trisotto, 966 So. 2d 986, 988 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007); see also Fla. Fam.
L. R. P. - 2 - 12.615(d)(1).
Those findings are nowhere to be found in this order. We must, therefore, reverse and remand for the circuit court to make the appropriate findings as to whether Mr. Williams' failure to pay was willful and whether he has a present ability to pay the fees as ordered.1 Isaacs, 157 So. 3d 545, 545-46 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) ("The order here at issue contained no recitation of facts to support the finding that appellant had the ability to comply with the court's prior order. For this reason, we reverse the order on motion for indirect civil contempt."); Trisotto, 966 So. 2d at 988 ("[T]he order fails to include a finding that Mr. Trisotto willfully failed to comply with his alimony obligations despite having the financial ability to do so as required by Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615(d)(1).
Accordingly, on this issue, we reverse for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to enter an order in compliance with rule 12.615(d)(1)." (citation omitted)).
Reversed and remanded. 1Following remand, should the circuit court enter a contempt order that includes arrest and incarceration, such an order will also need to include a purge provision, including findings of Mr. Williams' ability to pay the purge amount. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1279 (Fla. 1985) ("If incarceration is deemed appropriate, the court must make a separate, affirmative finding that the contemnor possesses the present ability to comply with the purge conditions set forth in the contempt order."); Perez v. Borga, 283 So. 3d 815, 816 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) ("[O]nce the trial court imposes incarceration as a sanction, the court's order must also contain 'a separate affirmative finding that the contemnor has the present ability to comply with the purge and the factual basis for that finding.' . . . [T]he presumption of ability to pay which attaches at the initial part of the contempt proceeding 'is not a substitute for the separate, affirmative finding of ability to pay required for incarceration.' " (first quoting Ramirez v. Ramirez, 84 So. 3d 434, 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012); and then quoting Pompey v. Cochran, 685 So. 2d 1007, 1014 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997))); see also Fla. Fam.
L. R. P. 12.615(e) ("If the court orders incarceration, a coercive fine, or any other coercive sanction for failure to comply with a prior support order, the court shall set conditions for purge of the contempt, based on the contemnor's present ability to comply. The court shall include in its order a separate affirmative finding that the contemnor has the present ability to comply with the purge and the factual basis for that finding.").
- 3 - KHOUZAM, C.J., and LUCAS and ROTHSTEIN-YOUAKIM, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)
- Pompey v. Cochran, 685 So. 2d 1007 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)
- Trisotto v. Trisotto, 966 So. 2d 986 (Fla. 5th DCA 2007)
- Ramirez v. Ramirez, 84 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- Perez v. Borga, 283 So. 3d 815 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019)
- Isaacs v. Isaacs, 157 So. 3d 545 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)