SERGE PHANORD
v.
MARTINE PHANORD
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.
A party need not file a written answer or plead affirmative defenses in response to a contempt motion under Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615(b), and due process requires that a general magistrate adjudicate an equitable laches defense raised at a contempt hearing rather than finding it waived for lack of formal pleading.
[1] A contempt motion filed pursuant to Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615(b) is not a pleading, and therefore the requirement under rule 12.110(d) to plead affirmat…
[2] Due process principles and rule 12.615(b), which guarantees an alleged contemnor an opportunity to be heard, require a general magistrate to adjudicate an equitable lache…
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“But a party needs to file an answer and affirmative defenses only in response to a pleading. Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.100(c), (d). Former Wife's contempt motion, filed pursuant to rules 12.100(b) and 12.615(b), is not a pleading.”
Establishes that the procedural requirement to plead affirmative defenses does not apply to contempt motions, which are not pleadings.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFormer Husband and Former Wife divorced in 1992, with a final judgment requiring child support payments. Approximately thirty years later and twenty y…
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 Affirmative Defense Pleading cases and more on FLexlaw
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida
Opinion filed May 14, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
________________
No. 3D24-0818 Lower Tribunal No. 92-47785 ________________
Serge Phanord, Appellant,
vs.
Martine Phanord, Appellee.
An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Marcia Del Rey, Judge.
Weinbaum P.A., and Lane Weinbaum (Coral Springs), for appellant.
Martine Phanord, in proper person.
Before EMAS, SCALES and GOODEN, JJ.
SCALES, J.
2
Appellant Serge Phanord (Former Husband) appeals a final order approving a general magistrate’s recommended order finding him in civil contempt for failing to pay child support. We reverse because the general magistrate erred by determining that Former Husband had waived his equitable laches defense.
I. Relevant Background
Former Husband and appellee Martine Phanord (Former Wife) were divorced in 1992. The final judgment required Former Husband to pay child support for their two minor children. Approximately thirty years after the divorce – and approximately twenty years after their youngest child reached adulthood – Former Wife, pursuant to Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615(b), filed a motion in family court for indirect civil contempt, alleging that Former Husband never made child support payments.
Pursuant to Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.490(b), the trial court referred Former Wife’s contempt motion to a general magistrate who conducted an evidentiary hearing on April4, 2024. During the hearing, Former Husband attempted to raise an equitable laches defense. The general magistrate, though, declined to consider laches because Former Husband did not plead laches as an affirmative defense.
3
The next day, the general magistrate issued an order recommending that the trial court grant Former Wife’s contempt motion.1 On April 9, 2024, the trial court entered a final order granting wife’s contempt motion and approving the general magistrate’s recommended order. Subsequently, the trial court denied Former Husband’s motion to vacate the final order filed pursuant to rule 12.490(e)(3). Former Husband timely appealed the trial court’s final order.
II. Analysis2
A. Introduction
Former Husband argues three issues on appeal: (i) the findings in the recommended order are not supported by competent, substantial evidence; (ii) the trial court failed to make required findings pursuant to rule 12.615(d)(1); and (iii) Former Husband was denied due process when the general magistrate declined to adjudicate Former Husband’s equitable laches defense. Because we reverse the contempt order based on Former
B. Equitable Laches
At the hearing before the general magistrate, Former Husband tried to argue an equitable laches defense.3 The general magistrate based this holding on his reading of Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.110(d), which requires that all affirmative defenses be stated in the answer.4
3 “Laches is an omission to assert a right for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, under circumstances prejudicial to the adverse party. It is an equitable defense, and its applicability depends upon the circumstances of each case. Delay alone in asserting a right does not constitute laches, and the burden is on the party who asserts the doctrine of laches to prove prejudice.” Ticktin v. Kearin, 807 So. 2d 659, 663 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001).
4 The general magistrate’s recommended order also referred generally to rule 12.120 (governing the pleading of special matters) and cited the case of Parra Del Rey v. Rey, 114 So. 3d 371, 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013), a case stating the general proposition that a failure to plead an affirmative defense
of fraud in a party’s answer to a petition for marriage dissolution waives fraud as a defense.
5 In relevant part, rule 12.615(b) states that no civil contempt may be imposed “without providing the alleged contemnor with an opportunity to be heard.” Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.615(b).
Contempt order reversed without prejudice to Former Wife filing a renewed contempt motion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Ticktin v. Kearin, 807 So. 2d 659 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001)
- DE REY v. REY, 114 So. 3d 371 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)