Roberts v. Roberts, 75--905

Decision Date05 March 1976
Docket NumberNo. 75--905,75--905
Citation328 So.2d 461
PartiesLawrence S. ROBERTS, Appellant, v. Lucy N. ROBERTS, Appellee.
CourtFlorida District Court of Appeals

George E. Adams, of Adams, Gilman & Cooper, Orlando, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an interlocutory appeal from an order adjudging appellant to be in contempt of court for failure to pay certain alimony and child support payments due under the terms of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The order sentenced appellant to a term of imprisonment and provided that appellant could purge himself (speaking generally) by paying the sums of money already accrued and past due And by paying the sums to become due in the future.

We affirm in part and reverse in part with these comments:

A. Appellant being in default, the burden of proving his inability to comply and that his failure was not willful rests upon appellant. Garo v. Garo, 327 So.2d 845 (Fla.App.4th (1976)).

B. While the order of presentation was confused, the cause for this lay at appellant's door. It is our opinion from the record that appellant had adequate opportunity to present his testimony and position. Further, the record supports the appealed adjudication of contempt.

C. Without detailing, we disagree with the Court's action which required appellant to pay sums not yet due, as it is erroneous to require a person to pay amounts not yet due in order to purge himself of contempt. We reverse only that part of the order which requires as a...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Hammond v. Sandstrom, 79-1939
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • November 6, 1979
    ...future support payments (as well as those past-due ones for the non-payment of which he was held in contempt). See Roberts v. Roberts, 328 So.2d 461 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Hilson v. Hilson, 145 So.2d 557 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962).3 This relief is of course granted without prejudice to any further an......
  • Poe v. Poe, 4D01-3466.
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • March 13, 2002
    ...Accordingly, a contemnor cannot be required to pay amounts not yet due in order to purge himself of contempt. Roberts v. Roberts, 328 So.2d 461, 462 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Hence, we affirm the lower court's contempt finding and award of attorney's fees. We reverse and remand with directions f......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT