REBECCA OLIVAREZ, FORMER WIFE
v.
LIONEL OLIVAREZ, FORMER HUSBAND
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 court addressed whether a second pre-incarceration hearing is required under due process principles when a former husband is held in contempt for failing to pay past-due and future alimony.
The court held that due process requires notice and a pre-incarceration hearing for future non-payment of future alimony obligations, but a second pre-incarceration hearing is not always required for failure to make payments on past-due, accrued alimony.
[1] It is error to include assets in an equitable distribution scheme that have been diminished or dissipated during dissolution proceedings absent a showing of misconduct.
[2] Reversal of the equitable distribution portion of a final judgment necessitates reconsideration of alimony, child support, and attorney's fees.
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 intelligenceA former husband was found in contempt for willfully failing to pay past-due alimony to his disabled former wife, despite having the ability to pay. T…
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 Dissipation Of Assets cases and more on FLexlaw
necessary. Branch v. Branch, 775 So. 2d 406, 408 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000) (The “reversal of portions of the final judgment necessarily affects the overall plan for equitable distribution of the marital assets and liabilities, as well as other financial aspects” such that “on remand, the trial court may reconsider the entire plan of equitable distribution, including the subjects of alimony and attorney's fees.”).
REVERSED and REMANDED.
LEWIS, MAKAR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. _____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331.
_____________________________ Michael M. Giel of Giel Family Law, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant. No appearance for Appellee.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Griffin v. Griffin, 273 So. 3d 282 (Fla. 1st DCA 2019)
Authorities Cited
- Roth v. Roth, 973 So. 2d 580 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008)
- Winder v. Dian A. Winder, 152 So. 3d 836 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)
- Buster Grantham v. State, 775 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)
- Branch v. Branch, 775 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)