Campbell v. Campbell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Campbell v. Campbell

679 So. 2d 366, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9752, 1996 WL 526212

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 18, 1996

DocketNo. 95-1413

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 679 So. 2d 366 (Campbell v. Campbell) 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

Campbell v. Campbell, 679 So. 2d 366, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9752, 1996 WL 526212 (Fla. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse an order adjudicating Appellant in civil contempt. The record lacks support for a conclusion that Appellant’s failure to pay arrearages was willful and that he had the present ability to purge himself of contempt.

Appellant’s unimpeaehed evidence was that, after the dissolution, Appellant lost his job and was unemployed for several months, following which his income was substantially reduced. He immediately sought modification but his petition was not heard for over two years because the initial final judgment was on appeal. He also sought temporary relief incident to Appellee’s enforcement proceedings. Appellee offers no independent evidence to refute Appellant’s proof of reduced income and the record contains no evidence of bad faith on Appellant’s part. We note that Appellant’s payment of the monthly purge amount would absorb all or nearly all of his remaining net income after payment of alimony and child support.

We remand for further proceedings. See generally Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274, 1279 (Fla.1985); Phillips v. Phillips, 588 So.2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991; Kossmann v. [367]*367Kossmann, 550 So.2d 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). As to all other issues, we affirm.

GLICKSTEIN, STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse an order adjudicating Appellant in civil contempt. The record lacks support for a conclusion that Appellant’s failure to pay arrearages was willful and that he had the present ability to purge himself of contempt.

Appellant’s unimpeaehed evidence was that, after the dissolution, Appellant lost his job and was unemployed for several months, following which his income was substantially reduced. He immediately sought modification but his petition was not heard for over two years because the initial final judgment was on appeal. He also sought temporary relief incident to Appellee’s enforcement proceedings. Appellee offers no independent evidence to refute Appellant’s proof of reduced income and the record contains no evidence of bad faith on Appellant’s part. We note that Appellant’s payment of the monthly purge amount would absorb all or nearly all of his remaining net income after payment of alimony and child support.

We remand for further proceedings. See generally Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274, 1279 (Fla.1985); Phillips v. Phillips, 588 So.2d 9 (Fla. 2d DCA 1991; Kossmann v. [367]*367Kossmann, 550 So.2d 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). As to all other issues, we affirm.

GLICKSTEIN, STONE and GROSS, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

679 So. 2d 366, 1996 Fla. App. LEXIS 9752, 1996 WL 526212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-campbell-fladistctapp-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack