Fort Lauderdale Divorce Lawyer Blog

The purpose of civil contempt is to obtain compliance with a child support, alimony or general court order and can only be used when the contemnor has the ability to comply.
First, your divorce lawyer in Fort Lauderdale must have the court determine whether the defaulting party has willfully violated the court order. Next, the court must determine the appropriate remedial measure. If the Florida marital and family law judge orders that the contemnor is to be jailed, the court must make a specific finding that he or she has the present ability to pay the purge.

In Aburos v Aburos, the former husband appealed an order finding him in indirect civil contempt and requiring him to be incarcerated which was entered by Miami divorce court Judge Amy Steele Donner for failing to pay the former wife alimony and child support pursuant to the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage. Specifically, the former wife asked the trial court to find the former husband in contempt of court for his failure to pay $1,700 per month for permanent periodic alimony and $1,693 per month in child support.

At the hearing, the former husband alleged that he has $52 in his bank account and a car worth $1,350. He also testified that he earned $2,160 per month working in his sister's retail store and lived in his sister's apartment. It was also revealed that while the former husband had access to the store's bank account which contained $25,000 and a signature stamp used to pay normal business operating expenses, he was not authorized to issue checks or withdraw funds for his personal use.

In reversing the decision of the trial court, the Third District Court of Appeal found that the former husband did not have the present ability to pay the $25,000 purge. The court reasoned that the former husband's ability to pay was based upon his access to his sister's bank account and his sister's present ability to pay the purge. The court further stated that the trial court erred in relying upon the good fortune and resources of the former husband's family member since the former husband was not permitted to legally use his sister's bank account for his own personal purposes.

Sandy T. Fox, Esquire, a divorce lawyer in Broward and Miami-Dade, represented the Former Wife in an enforcement proceeding in the Florida marital and family law court located north of Fort Lauderdale. The equitable distribution provision of the marital settlement agreement provided that the Former Wife was to receive $141,263.72 from the Former Husband. The Former Husband retained his real property in New York. While no date of payment to the Former Wife was specified in the marital settlement agreement, the final judgment of dissolution of marriage ordered the parties to comply with the marital settlement agreement.

The Former Wife filed a motion to enforce the equitable distribution provision of the final judgment since the Former Husband had only made 5 incremental payments. At the hearing, she testified that she was to receive $141,263.72 upon entry of the final judgment. On the otherhand, the Former Husband testified that the Former Wife was to be paid upon the sale of his New York property.

On appeal in the case of Crespo v. Crespo, the Former Wife argued that the trial court erred in admitting parol evidence as to the intent of the parties. In affirming the decision of the divorce court located north of Ft. Lauderdale, the Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the marital settlement agreement contained a latent ambiguity since it failed to specify the time in which the Former Wife was to receive payment from the Former Husband. The court explained that a latent ambiguity arises when the language in a contract is clear and intelligible and suggests a single meaning, but some extrinsic fact or extraneous evidence creates a necessity for interpretation or a choice among two or more possible meanings.

In affirming the decision of the Florida marital and family law court, the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that when a marital settlement agreement is ambiguous or unclear as to a particular right or duty, the court may receive extrinsic parol evidence for the purpose of determining the intent of the parties at the time of the contract. The court reasoned that when a contract fails to specify the rights or duties of the parties, extrinsic evidence becomes necessary and the trial court can consider parol evidence.