Mroz v. Florida Department of Revenue ex rel. Mroz

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Mroz v. Florida Department of Revenue ex rel. Mroz

712 So. 2d 482, 1998 WL 374835

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJuly 8, 1998

DocketNo. 97-1753

StatusPublished

This text of 712 So. 2d 482 (Mroz v. Florida Department of Revenue ex rel. Mroz) 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

Mroz v. Florida Department of Revenue ex rel. Mroz, 712 So. 2d 482, 1998 WL 374835 (Fla. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order ratifying the report and recommendations holding appellant in contempt for non-payment of child support.

Appellant first complains that the trial court faded to afford him an indigency hearing for the appointment of counsel. However, this was a civil proceeding for which appellant was not entitled to appointed counsel. See Pompey v. Cochran, 685 So.2d 1007, 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). In addition, we do not find that the order was deficient as to the necessary findings or the requisite evidence to support those findings. Finally, we find that the trial court did not err in refusing to give appellant credit against his support obligation for payments made directly to the children or third parties as the same were not made in substantial compliance with the court’s support order. See Friend v. Friend, 543 So.2d 408, 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

DELL, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the trial court’s order ratifying the report and recommendations holding appellant in contempt for non-payment of child support.

Appellant first complains that the trial court faded to afford him an indigency hearing for the appointment of counsel. However, this was a civil proceeding for which appellant was not entitled to appointed counsel. See Pompey v. Cochran, 685 So.2d 1007, 1013 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). In addition, we do not find that the order was deficient as to the necessary findings or the requisite evidence to support those findings. Finally, we find that the trial court did not err in refusing to give appellant credit against his support obligation for payments made directly to the children or third parties as the same were not made in substantial compliance with the court’s support order. See Friend v. Friend, 543 So.2d 408, 408 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989).

DELL, WARNER and KLEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

712 So. 2d 482, 1998 WL 374835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mroz-v-florida-department-of-revenue-ex-rel-mroz-fladistctapp-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack