Howell v. Howell

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Howell v. Howell

700 So. 2d 467, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11996, 1997 WL 659830

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 23, 1997

DocketNo. 97-3165

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 700 So. 2d 467 (Howell v. Howell) 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

Howell v. Howell, 700 So. 2d 467, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11996, 1997 WL 659830 (Fla. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks certiorari review of an order finding him to be in civil contempt and committing him to jail for his failure to pay past due child support. We conclude that the trial court’s order is facially deficient in that it does not contain a finding that petitioner has the present ability to pay the purge amount. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985); Coogan v. Coogan, 662 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Moreover, we conclude that the record before this court would not support such a finding, had one been made. Accordingly, the petition for [468]*468writ of certiorari is granted and the trial court’s order of contempt is quashed.

JOANOS, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Petitioner seeks certiorari review of an order finding him to be in civil contempt and committing him to jail for his failure to pay past due child support. We conclude that the trial court’s order is facially deficient in that it does not contain a finding that petitioner has the present ability to pay the purge amount. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985); Coogan v. Coogan, 662 So.2d 1380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Moreover, we conclude that the record before this court would not support such a finding, had one been made. Accordingly, the petition for [468]*468writ of certiorari is granted and the trial court’s order of contempt is quashed.

JOANOS, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

700 So. 2d 467, 1997 Fla. App. LEXIS 11996, 1997 WL 659830, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howell-v-howell-fladistctapp-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack