Lascaibar v. Lascaibar, 97-2386
| Decision Date | 29 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-2386,97-2386 |
| Citation | 715 So.2d 1042,23 Fla. L. Weekly 1757 |
| Parties | 23 Fla. L. Weekly 1757 Nivia LASCAIBAR, Appellant, v. Albert A. LASCAIBAR, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Spiegelman and Spiegelman and Robert Spiegelman, Miami, for appellant.
Albert A. Lascaibar, in pro. per.
Before NESBITT, GODERICH and SHEVIN, JJ.
Nivia Lascaibar argues that a trial court's post judgment Order of Contempt and Commitment and Final Judgment failed to take sufficient action to secure needed support arrearages from her former husband. We agree.
The trial court specifically found Albert Lascaibar had "willfully, intentionally and contumaciously failed and refused to comply" with this court's earlier opinion, see Lascaibar v. Lascaibar, 658 So.2d 170 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)(herein Lascaibar I ), as well as the subsequent orders of the trial court to enforce the mandate on this matter.
In Lascaibar I, 658 So.2d at 170-71, we concluded:
The judgment below approving the general master's report with respect to child support is reversed because (1) while income was correctly imputed to the father because of the unrebutted showing that he had deliberately abandoned a lucrative optometric practice apparently solely in order to deprive his wife and children of his ability to support them, ... the amount attributed, $50,000.00 per annum, was far less than the sum indisputably shown to have been earned by the husband during the course of the marriage. Accordingly, we increase the amount of attributed income to $80,000.00 per annum.
... We also find clear error in the master's and trial court's refusal to consider applications to require the husband to make support payments and to hold him in contempt for not doing so.
Thereafter, in its order of May, 1996 the trial judge computed arrearages of $46,871.96 as due and owing since 1993, and set up a schedule for repayment.
Despite this father's clear ability to comply with this schedule, approximately fourteen months later, in the order herein appealed, the trial court found Mr. Lascaibar had failed to comply with its orders and calculated support then due in the amount of $56,106.30. The trial judge sentenced Mr. Lascaibar to serve 30 days in the Dade County Jail for contempt, but gave him the opportunity to purge himself by paying $5,000 within 60 days, which Mr. Lascaibar paid 1, leaving Mrs. Lascaibar with a money judgment for the $51,106.30 balance.
At the hearing on Mrs. Lascaibar's motion to enforce the orders in place, Mr. Lascaibar would not account for a number of missing checks and would not provide documentation for what he maintained was his financial condition. He was living comfortably with a new spouse, but asserted he had no money. In the face of $51,106.30 still due and needed, Mrs. Lascaibar argued for additional action.
A trial judge has an arsenal of mechanisms, both criminal and civil, for enforcement of orders for support arrearages, even after a money judgment has been entered. Brown v. Smith, 705 So.2d 682 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) as well as Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985) clearly envision finding a defendant guilty of indirect criminal contempt even in the absence of a present ability to pay. See Robbins v. Robbins, 429 So.2d 424, 431 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983) (). As observed in Brown, 705 So.2d at 682:
Criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate where the party in default has continually and willfully neglected court-ordered support obligations, or has affirmatively divested him or herself of assets and property. See Bowen at 1279.
See also Johnson v. Felton, 655 So.2d 1286, 1287 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)( an appropriate case, the trial court may employ contempt as a punitive sanction, accomplished by initiating proceedings for indirect criminal contempt under Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840.) U...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lascaibar v. Lascaibar
...remanded with instructions to issue a rule to show cause pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.840. See Lascaibar v. Lascaibar, 715 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). The Father was subsequently acquitted of criminal contempt, and the Mother appealed the acquittal. This Court dismiss......
-
Lascaibar v. Lascaibar, 3D99-2213.
...after the former husband was found not guilty of indirect criminal contempt. The answer is no. On remand from Lascaibar v. Lascaibar, 715 So.2d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998), the trial court directed the former husband, Albert A. Lascaibar, to show cause why he should not be held in indirect crim......
-
Erickson v. Erickson
...When, as here, the judgment to be enforced is equitable in nature, a trial court possesses broad powers. Lascaibar v. Lascaibar, 715 So.2d 1042, 1043 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998). The trial court did not exceed the scope of those broad powers. Accordingly, the "Order on Emergency Motion for Enforceme......