Gonzalo Bouquet v. Joanna Jones

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: February 26, 2025
• Docket: 3D2024-1184
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 26, 2025. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D24-1184 Lower Tribunal No. 22-20009-FC-04 ________________

Gonzalo Bouquet, Appellant,

vs.

Joanna Jones, Appellee.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jason Emilios Dimitris, Judge.

Gonzalo Bouquet, in proper person.

Filler Rodriguez LLP, and Catherine M. Rodriguez, for appellee.

Before EMAS, SCALES and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Baratta v. Costa-Martinez, 139 So. 3d 407, 408 (Fla. 3d

DCA 2014) (“After considering the evidence, the trial court concluded the

father was not credible and was thwarting discovery in a deliberate attempt

to appear impoverished. The court determined competent substantial

evidence supported the prior adverse inference as to the father’s ability to

pay the court-ordered sums. . . . We conclude the trial court did not depart

from the essential requirements of law in finding the father in contempt and

ordering him to pay a $20,000 purge to avoid incarceration.”); Peterson v.

Asklipious, 855 So. 2d 704, 705 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“At the contempt

hearing, Peterson had the burden of demonstrating that he no longer had

the ability to make the payments ordered in the attorney’s fee order[.]”);

Carlton v. Carlton, 816 So. 2d 254, 256 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002) (“The trial court’s

order expressly found that [the former husband] had the ability to pay. The

record lacks a transcript of the hearing where the trial court accepted

evidence on this issue. Therefore, we are compelled to affirm.”); Giltex Corp.

v. Diehl, 583 So. 2d 734, 735 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) (recognizing that the

absence of an evidentiary hearing transcript or stipulated statement of facts

compels affirmance where the trial court’s order awarding attorney’s fees

makes the express findings required by Florida Patient’s Compensation

Fund v. Rowe, 472 So. 2d 1145 (Fla. 1985)).