CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH BORDONARO, FORMER HUSBAND
v.
EMILY JOY BORDONARO, FORMER WIFE
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 trial court cannot modify child support obligations on a motion for contempt for nonpayment without following statutory procedures, cannot adjudicate abandonment through a contempt proceeding, and must make specific findings regarding both parties' ability to pay before awarding attorney's fees.
[1] A trial court cannot modify child support on a party's motion for contempt for nonpayment of child support.
[2] A finding of abandonment of a minor child cannot be properly requested or established through a motion for contempt or enforcement of support obligations.
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“A motion for contempt or enforcement for failure to meet one's support obligations is not the proper vehicle to request a finding of abandonment.”
Court's discussion of improper adjudication of abandonment in contempt proceeding
Christopher Bordonaro appealed a trial court order finding him in contempt, increasing his monthly child support obligations, and awarding attorney's …
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 Need And Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
STATE OF FLORIDA _____________________________
No. 1D18-4091 _____________________________
CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH BORDONARO, Former Husband,
Appellant,
v. EMILY JOY BORDONARO, Former Wife,
Appellee.
_____________________________ On appeal from the Circuit Court for Nassau County. Robert M. Foster, Judge.
May 21, 2019 PER CURIAM.
Christopher Joseph Bordonaro appeals the trial court’s order granting his former wife’s Motion for Contempt/Enforcement and Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs. The motion alleged that Appellant neglected his child support obligations under the Consent Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage (Final Judgment). We agree that the trial court adjudicated issues during the contempt hearing that were not properly pleaded or noticed and improperly granted attorney’s fees to the former wife. We reject all of Appellant’s other claims.
The increase of Appellant’s monthly child support payments is improper for two reasons. First, it did not use the requisite separate pleading, financial affidavits, or worksheet. §§ 61.14, 61.30(14), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.285(k). Second, a trial court cannot modify child support on a party’s motion for contempt for nonpayment of child support. McGrath v. Caron, 8 So. 3d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). As a result, the arrearages imposed by the trial court based on the improperly modified child support obligations were also improperly imposed.
Moreover, the trial court’s order found that Appellant effectively abandoned his minor child. A motion for contempt or enforcement for failure to meet one’s support obligations is not the proper vehicle to request a finding of abandonment. Abandonment must be established by clear and convincing evidence and is usually requested through a petition for termination of parental rights. See T.S. ex rel. D.H. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 969 So. 2d 494, 495 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007).
Finally, the trial court erroneously granted Appellant’s former wife’s request for attorney’s fees without considering or making any findings regarding either party’s need or ability to pay. See Fulmer v. Fulmer, 961 So. 2d 1081, 1082 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Perrin v. Perrin, 795 So. 2d 1023, 1024 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001).
Accordingly, we reverse and remand so that the trial court can 1) strike the modified increase in child support and related arrearages and make the requisite findings supporting the enforcement of Appellant’s original child support obligation pursuant to the Final Judgment; 2) strike its finding that Bordonaro effectively abandoned his minor child; and 3) make the appropriate findings regarding both parties’ ability to pay and need for attorney’s fees.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
WOLF, KELSEY, and WINOKUR, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Perrin v. Perrin, 795 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 2001)
- Fulmer v. Hobson Fulmer, 961 So. 2d 1081 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- T.S. v. Dep't of Child. & Families, 969 So. 2d 494 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- McGRATH v. Caron, 8 So. 3d 1253 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)