SANDRA EPPERSON RICH v. JOHN D. RICH

District Court of Appeal of Florida

SANDRA EPPERSON RICH v. JOHN D. RICH

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 3, 2024

Docket20-0707

StatusPublished

This text of SANDRA EPPERSON RICH v. JOHN D. RICH (SANDRA EPPERSON RICH v. JOHN D. RICH) 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

SANDRA EPPERSON RICH v. JOHN D. RICH, (Fla. Ct. App. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

SANDRA EPPERSON RICH,

Appellant,

v.

JOHN D. RICH; ARNOLD R. RICH; BANNUM, INC.; KENTUCKY MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.; and 656 R/E VENTURES, INC.,

Appellees.

No. 2D20-707

April 3, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Christopher Labruzzo, Judge.

David A. Maney of Maney, Damsker & Jones, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Michael J. Park of Park, Ossian, Barnaky & Park, P.A., Clearwater, for Appellee John D. Rich.

No appearance for remaining Appellees.

NORTHCUTT, Judge. Sandra Rich challenges an order that held her in contempt because she had not paid attorneys' fees to her former husband, John Rich, in accordance with a prior fee award. We reverse because the underlying rulings upon which the contempt finding was based have been disapproved. In case number 2D20-440, this court reversed aspects of the Riches' divorce judgment and we remanded for a new trial. See Rich v. Rich, 337 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022). Then, in case number 2D19- 2721, we reversed an award of attorneys' fees and costs to the former husband because the award was premised on many of the findings that had been reversed in case number 2D20-440. See Rich v. Rich, 346 So. 3d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022). The order on appeal in the instant case held the former wife in contempt for failing to pay the fee award that we set aside in case number 2D19-2721. As the former husband correctly concedes, the contempt order must be reversed. See Wiesenthal v. Wiesenthal, 154 So. 3d 488, 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing a contempt order after the fee order upon which it was based was reversed in a companion appeal). Having reversed both the fee award and the resulting contempt order, we find no basis for permitting the former husband to retain money paid to him thereunder. See Chopin & Chopin, LP v. Brennan, 178 So. 3d 509, 510-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that a party holding funds paid pursuant to a vacated contempt order must reimburse the funds to the other party). On remand, if the former wife establishes that she has made any payment required by the contempt order or the fee award upon which it was based, she will be "entitled to reimbursement in the amount paid." See id. Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

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

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT

SANDRA EPPERSON RICH,

Appellant,

v.

JOHN D. RICH; ARNOLD R. RICH; BANNUM, INC.; KENTUCKY MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.; and 656 R/E VENTURES, INC.,

Appellees.

No. 2D20-707

April 3, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Christopher Labruzzo, Judge.

David A. Maney of Maney, Damsker & Jones, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Michael J. Park of Park, Ossian, Barnaky & Park, P.A., Clearwater, for Appellee John D. Rich.

No appearance for remaining Appellees.

NORTHCUTT, Judge. Sandra Rich challenges an order that held her in contempt because she had not paid attorneys' fees to her former husband, John Rich, in accordance with a prior fee award. We reverse because the underlying rulings upon which the contempt finding was based have been disapproved. In case number 2D20-440, this court reversed aspects of the Riches' divorce judgment and we remanded for a new trial. See Rich v. Rich, 337 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022). Then, in case number 2D19- 2721, we reversed an award of attorneys' fees and costs to the former husband because the award was premised on many of the findings that had been reversed in case number 2D20-440. See Rich v. Rich, 346 So. 3d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022). The order on appeal in the instant case held the former wife in contempt for failing to pay the fee award that we set aside in case number 2D19-2721. As the former husband correctly concedes, the contempt order must be reversed. See Wiesenthal v. Wiesenthal, 154 So. 3d 488, 489 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing a contempt order after the fee order upon which it was based was reversed in a companion appeal). Having reversed both the fee award and the resulting contempt order, we find no basis for permitting the former husband to retain money paid to him thereunder. See Chopin & Chopin, LP v. Brennan, 178 So. 3d 509, 510-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that a party holding funds paid pursuant to a vacated contempt order must reimburse the funds to the other party). On remand, if the former wife establishes that she has made any payment required by the contempt order or the fee award upon which it was based, she will be "entitled to reimbursement in the amount paid." See id. Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

SANDRA EPPERSON RICH v. JOHN D. RICH, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sandra-epperson-rich-v-john-d-rich-fladistctapp-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack