Rosen v. Rosen

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Rosen v. Rosen

579 So. 2d 846, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4428, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1319

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 15, 1991

DocketNo. 90-3042

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 579 So. 2d 846 (Rosen v. Rosen) 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

Rosen v. Rosen, 579 So. 2d 846, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4428, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1319 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Gary Rosen appeals an order granting Hedy Rosen’s emergency motion for contempt for failure to comply with the trial court’s order awarding Hedy Rosen temporary support and maintenance. We reverse because the order fails to make the specific findings required by Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985). Although there was sufficient competent evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that Gary Rosen willfully disobeyed the prior order awarding temporary alimony, the trial court’s order of contempt is facially defective. First, it does not satisfy the requirement in Bowen that, in order to incarcerate the civil contemnor, the trial court “must make a separate, affirmative finding that the contemnor possesses the present ability to comply with the purge conditions set forth in the contempt order.” Id. at 1279. Second, Hedy Rosen concedes that the order fails to adequately inform Gary Rosen of the exact dollar amount necessary to purge his contempt.

Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the order directing that Gary Rosen be incarcerated if he fails to pay Hedy Rosen. We remand to the trial court for further proceedings. See Campbell v. Campbell, 571 So.2d 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Gary Rosen appeals an order granting Hedy Rosen’s emergency motion for contempt for failure to comply with the trial court’s order awarding Hedy Rosen temporary support and maintenance. We reverse because the order fails to make the specific findings required by Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985). Although there was sufficient competent evidence to support the trial court’s conclusion that Gary Rosen willfully disobeyed the prior order awarding temporary alimony, the trial court’s order of contempt is facially defective. First, it does not satisfy the requirement in Bowen that, in order to incarcerate the civil contemnor, the trial court “must make a separate, affirmative finding that the contemnor possesses the present ability to comply with the purge conditions set forth in the contempt order.” Id. at 1279. Second, Hedy Rosen concedes that the order fails to adequately inform Gary Rosen of the exact dollar amount necessary to purge his contempt.

Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the order directing that Gary Rosen be incarcerated if he fails to pay Hedy Rosen. We remand to the trial court for further proceedings. See Campbell v. Campbell, 571 So.2d 555 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

HERSEY, C.J., and GUNTHER and WARNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

579 So. 2d 846, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 4428, 16 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. D 1319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rosen-v-rosen-fladistctapp-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack