Pierce v. Pierce

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pierce v. Pierce

18 So. 3d 1074, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 260, 2009 WL 103163

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 16, 2009

DocketNo. 2D08-356

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 18 So. 3d 1074 (Pierce v. Pierce) 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

Pierce v. Pierce, 18 So. 3d 1074, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 260, 2009 WL 103163 (Fla. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

LaROSE, Judge.

Jay Pierce appeals an order holding him in civil contempt for failure to pay alimony to his former wife.

Mr. Pierce argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to continue so that the trial court could hear his supplemental petition to modify alimony together with the contempt motion. We find no error. Even if the trial court had considered the two motions simultaneously, it could not have reduced the alimony due prior to the filing of the supplemental petition. See Ray v. Ray, 707 So.2d 358, 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

Mr. Pierce also argues that the contempt order is unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. We affirm, without further discussion, the trial court’s determination that Mr. Pierce could pay the arrearage. However, we must reverse as to that portion of the order imposing incarceration upon Mr. Pierce; the trial court failed to make a separate affirmative finding that Mr. Pierce had the present ability to pay $25,000 to purge himself of the contempt. See Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.615(e);¹ Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274, 1278-79 (Fla.1985) (holding that the trial court may not incarcerate a civil con-temnor without an affirmative finding that he has the ability to pay the purge amount). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.

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

LaROSE, Judge.

Jay Pierce appeals an order holding him in civil contempt for failure to pay alimony to his former wife.

Mr. Pierce argues that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to continue so that the trial court could hear his supplemental petition to modify alimony together with the contempt motion. We find no error. Even if the trial court had considered the two motions simultaneously, it could not have reduced the alimony due prior to the filing of the supplemental petition. See Ray v. Ray, 707 So.2d 358, 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 1998).

Mr. Pierce also argues that the contempt order is unsupported by competent, substantial evidence. We affirm, without further discussion, the trial court’s determination that Mr. Pierce could pay the arrearage. However, we must reverse as to that portion of the order imposing incarceration upon Mr. Pierce; the trial court failed to make a separate affirmative finding that Mr. Pierce had the present ability to pay $25,000 to purge himself of the contempt. See Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.615(e);¹ Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274, 1278-79 (Fla.1985) (holding that the trial court may not incarcerate a civil con-temnor without an affirmative finding that he has the ability to pay the purge amount). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded.

ALTENBERND and CASANUEVA, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 So. 3d 1074, 2009 Fla. App. LEXIS 260, 2009 WL 103163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pierce-v-pierce-fladistctapp-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack