EDWARD FERNANDEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
ANA APARICIO FERNANDEZ, 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.
In a family law matter, the trial court held a father in contempt for failing to pay child support ordered three months earlier. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the father failed to demonstrate any change in his financial circumstances since the original judgment and that the trial court properly rejected his contradictory testimony regarding asset ownership.
The court affirmed the contempt finding, holding that the appellant failed to demonstrate any change in his financial ability since the final judgment entered three months prior, and that the trial court properly rejected his contradictory testimony regarding annuity ownership. The trial court made all necessary findings required by controlling precedent, and those findings were supported by substantial competent evidence.
[1] A trial court may summarily reject a party's testimony at a contempt hearing if it contradicts prior findings made in a final judgment entered only three months prior.
[2] A party seeking to avoid a contempt finding for failure to pay child support must demonstrate a change in their ability to pay since the entry of the final judgment.
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“The trial court was bound by the findings in the judgment, entered only three months prior to the contempt hearing, which included the trial court's finding that the appellant owned the $71,000 annuity.”
Establishes that the trial court properly relied on its recent factual findings in the final judgment and could reject contradictory testimony at the contempt hearing.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe trial court entered a final judgment dissolving the parties' marriage and ordered child support based on the appellant's documented salary and his…
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 Contempt For Failure To Pay Child Support cases and more on FLexlaw
WARNER, J.
Three months after the trial court entered final judgment dissolving the parties’ marriage, the court held appellant in contempt for failure to pay child support. Appellant primarily complains that the trial court erred (1) by finding that he had failed to rebut the presumption of ability to pay either the support amounts or the purge provision and (2) by failing to make the necessary findings to support its order. We affirm.
In the final judgment, the trial court had recited the appellant’s salary and determined the amount of child support based upon the parties’ respective incomes. The court further determined that appellant was the owner of an annuity, thereby rejecting appellant’s claim that his mother owned the annuity. Three months later, at the hearing on appellee’s motion for contempt, appellant testified that his salary was the same as determined by the court in the final judgment. He again testified that he did not own the annuity and that he could not make the payments ordered.
Appellant did not show that his ability to pay was any different than at the time of the final judgment. The trial court was bound by the findings in the judgment, entered only three months prior to the contempt hearing, which included the trial court’s finding that the appellant owned the $71,000 annuity. The trial court could summarily reject appellant’s testimony at the contempt hearing that he did not own the annuity since it was contrary to the final judgment.
The trial court made all of the necessary findings required by Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1278 (Fla.1985), all of which were supported by the evidence. See also Pompey v. Cochran, 685 So. 2d 1007, 1015 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). Furthermore, there was substantial competent evidence to support those findings. We have not considered the appellant’s additional arguments as to the ability to pay a second future purge amount, since such was raised for the first time in the reply brief. See RIS Inv. Group, Inc. v. Department of Bus. and Prof'l Regulation Div. of Florida Land Sales Condominiums and Mobile Homes, 695 So. 2d 357, 359-60 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 698 So. 2d 839 (Fla.1997).
Affirmed.
STONE, C.J., and KLEIN, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Acencion Medrano v. State, 795 So. 2d 1009 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)…nt also raises new issues not discussed in his initial brief or raised at the evidentiary hearing. These claims cannot be considered because they were not preserved or raised in the initial brief. See Fla. R.App. P. 9.210(d); Fernandez v. Fernandez; 727 So. 2d 1108, 1109 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999). Finally, we point out that an Anders brief is not necessary in rule 3.850 full appeals. See Mayolo v. State, 714 So. 2d 1124, 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998). However, the public defender having filed a brief in this case, we d…
-
Nunez v. Buss, 63 So. 3d 878 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011)…PER CURIAM. DENIED. See Powell v. Florida Dep’t of Corr., 727 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). DAVIS, ROBERTS, and ROWE, JJ., concur.…
-
Doll v. Fla. Dep't OF Corr., 106 So. 3d 955 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…[*956] PER CURIAM. DENIED. See Powell v. Florida Department of Corrections, 727 So. 2d 1108 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). DAVIS, LEWIS, and ROBERTS, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities 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)
- RIS Inv. Grp., Inc. v. Dep't of Bus. & Prof'l Reg. Div. of Fla. Land Sales Condos. & Mobile Homes, 695 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)