Escribano v. Coviello

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Escribano v. Coviello

698 So. 2d 934, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10130, 1997 WL 559437

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 10, 1997

DocketNo. 97-1581

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 698 So. 2d 934 (Escribano v. Coviello) 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

Escribano v. Coviello, 698 So. 2d 934, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10130, 1997 WL 559437 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order finding Appellant in civil contempt and setting a purge amount for his failure to pay child support. Appellant argues that there was never an order entered requiring him to pay a stated sum of support. The only order provided to this court represents that the parties agreed that support would be pursuant to the guidelines. See § 61.30, Fla. Stat. (1995).¹

To obtain a guidelines amount of support the statute requires the consideration of several factors, including the parties’ incomes and deductions. See Section 61.30(2) & (3), Fla. Stat. (1995). Accordingly, we find this reference to the guidelines insufficient to support a contempt finding as it is not clear and definite so as to make Appellant aware of his obligation. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Lawrence, 384 So.2d 279, 280 (Fla. 4th DCA [935]*9351980). In fact, we note that the trial court’s contempt order does not reference any underlying support order.

We also reverse the trial court’s finding that Appellant has the ability to pay the purge amount. Such finding does not take into account that the purge amount provided would absorb nearly all of Appellant’s income. See Campbell v. Campbell, 679 So.2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

STONE, C.J., and STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We reverse the order finding Appellant in civil contempt and setting a purge amount for his failure to pay child support. Appellant argues that there was never an order entered requiring him to pay a stated sum of support. The only order provided to this court represents that the parties agreed that support would be pursuant to the guidelines. See § 61.30, Fla. Stat. (1995).¹

To obtain a guidelines amount of support the statute requires the consideration of several factors, including the parties’ incomes and deductions. See Section 61.30(2) & (3), Fla. Stat. (1995). Accordingly, we find this reference to the guidelines insufficient to support a contempt finding as it is not clear and definite so as to make Appellant aware of his obligation. See, e.g., Lawrence v. Lawrence, 384 So.2d 279, 280 (Fla. 4th DCA [935]*9351980). In fact, we note that the trial court’s contempt order does not reference any underlying support order.

We also reverse the trial court’s finding that Appellant has the ability to pay the purge amount. Such finding does not take into account that the purge amount provided would absorb nearly all of Appellant’s income. See Campbell v. Campbell, 679 So.2d 366 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996).

STONE, C.J., and STEVENSON and SHAHOOD, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

698 So. 2d 934, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 10130, 1997 WL 559437, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/escribano-v-coviello-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack