Anderson v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, HAMILTON

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Anderson v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, HAMILTON

11 So. 3d 424, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 4467, 2009 WL 1311071

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 2009

Docket4D08-2485

StatusPublished

This text of 11 So. 3d 424 (Anderson v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, HAMILTON) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, HAMILTON, 11 So. 3d 424, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 4467, 2009 WL 1311071 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

POLEN, J.

Appellant, Michael Anderson, appeals the trial court’s order holding him in contempt for his failure to pay child support and setting a purge of $5000. This court has jurisdiction. Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A).

Anderson was divorced from his former wife by final judgment of dissolution entered on December 12, 1997. The final judgment ordered Anderson to pay child support for the couple’s son in the amount of $424.00 per month.

*425 On June 5, 2008, a hearing officer considered the Department of Revenue’s motion for contempt. The hearing officer found that Anderson owed $50,903.35 in past child support as of May 21, 2008 and ordered Anderson to pay a purge of $5000 within forty-eight (48) hours in order to avoid incarceration. The trial court ratified and approved the report of the hearing officer on June 13, 2008. Anderson timely filed his notice of appeal and the trial court determined that Anderson was indigent for purposes of appeal.

In Marcellus v. Voltaire, 649 So.2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) this court determined that the trial court committed reversible error when it entered an order finding that the father was in arrears in payment of his child support obligation, had the present ability to pay, and would be incarcerated if he failed to pay and shortly thereafter entered another order finding father indigent for purposes of appellate filing fees and costs. Id. at 944. We held that the finding of indigent status affirmatively established father’s inability to pay the purge. Id. (quoting Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274, 1279 (Fla.1985)). Similarly, in the present case, the trial court erred in holding Anderson in contempt and shortly thereafter finding him indigent for purposes of appeal. As evidenced by the court’s finding of indigence, Anderson did not have the present ability to pay the purge.

Reversed.

GROSS, C.J., and FARMER, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

POLEN, J.

Appellant, Michael Anderson, appeals the trial court’s order holding him in contempt for his failure to pay child support and setting a purge of $5000. This court has jurisdiction. Fla. R.App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(A).

Anderson was divorced from his former wife by final judgment of dissolution entered on December 12, 1997. The final judgment ordered Anderson to pay child support for the couple’s son in the amount of $424.00 per month.

*425 On June 5, 2008, a hearing officer considered the Department of Revenue’s motion for contempt. The hearing officer found that Anderson owed $50,903.35 in past child support as of May 21, 2008 and ordered Anderson to pay a purge of $5000 within forty-eight (48) hours in order to avoid incarceration. The trial court ratified and approved the report of the hearing officer on June 13, 2008. Anderson timely filed his notice of appeal and the trial court determined that Anderson was indigent for purposes of appeal.

In Marcellus v. Voltaire, 649 So.2d 944 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) this court determined that the trial court committed reversible error when it entered an order finding that the father was in arrears in payment of his child support obligation, had the present ability to pay, and would be incarcerated if he failed to pay and shortly thereafter entered another order finding father indigent for purposes of appellate filing fees and costs. Id. at 944. We held that the finding of indigent status affirmatively established father’s inability to pay the purge. Id. (quoting Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274, 1279 (Fla.1985)). Similarly, in the present case, the trial court erred in holding Anderson in contempt and shortly thereafter finding him indigent for purposes of appeal. As evidenced by the court’s finding of indigence, Anderson did not have the present ability to pay the purge.

Reversed.

GROSS, C.J., and FARMER, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 So. 3d 424, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 4467, 2009 WL 1311071, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-department-of-revenue-hamilton-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack