Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Stephen Jeremy ROBINSON, Appellant, v. Jennifer Lea ROBINSON, Appellee.
In these consolidated appeals, Stephen Jeremy Robinson (“Former Husband”) appeals the trial court's two post-final-judgment orders adjudicating him in civil contempt for failing to pay his share of certain medical, dental, and optical expenses incurred on behalf of his minor children and for failing to pay his child support obligations owed by him to the appellee, Jennifer Lea Robinson (“Former Wife”), arising from the dissolution of their marriage. Former Husband also appeals a separate post-judgment order directing the clerk of court to adjust its child support payment records to reflect that, as of February 27, 2017, Former Husband owed child support arrearages in the sum of $6931.50. In this opinion, we first provide a brief history of the case, and we then address each order under review in the specific appellate case in which the order is being appealed.
In 2012, the parties decided to end their marriage. To that end, they executed a marital settlement agreement in March 2012 to resolve their respective rights and obligations to each other in dissolving their marriage. Pertinent here, Former Husband was to pay to Former Wife the sum of $300 per month in durational alimony for a period of fifty-four months; and the parties were to share the parental responsibility for the care and upbringing of their two minor children, with Former Husband paying child support to Former Wife in the sum of $900 per month. Though the agreement was not executed until March, Former Husband's alimony and child support payments were to commence as of January 1, 2012. The parties also agreed to maintain insurance coverage for the benefit of their children, with any medical, dental, optical, orthodontic, mental health care, and other medically necessary expenses not covered by the insurance to be split evenly between them.
In April 2012, Former Wife filed her petition for dissolution of marriage, requesting that the marriage be dissolved and the parties' marital settlement agreement be approved. Former Husband answered; and, in May 2012, the case came before a general magistrate. Following a hearing, the magistrate issued a written report finding that the parties' marriage was irretrievably broken and approving their marital settlement agreement. The trial court thereafter entered a final judgment approving, adopting, and incorporating the general magistrate's report and the parties' marital settlement agreement into the judgment, effectively dissolving the parties' marriage.
Appellate Case 5D17-1109—
In this appeal, Former Husband challenges the trial court's order finding him in civil contempt for failing to pay his share of the children's uncovered medical, dental, and optical expenses incurred in 2015. Due to time constraints, the hearing that was held on Former Wife's contempt motion was adjourned prior to Former Husband putting on his defense and without the actual bills in dispute being placed into evidence. Nevertheless, by order dated November 2, 2015, Former Husband was to bring “current within ninety days” those expenses “for which he had received documentation.” Following another hearing, the court entered an order on September 16, 2016, finding Former Husband in contempt of the November 2, 2015 order for willfully failing to pay the sum of $3155.07 for the children's uncovered medical, dental, and optical expenses incurred in 2015.
In his initial brief and at the recently-held oral argument, Former Husband represented to this court that he no longer contests the amount determined to be his share of these expenses. Former Husband does, however, maintain that the trial court erred in adjudicating him in contempt of court, asserting that the November 2, 2015 order upon which the later contempt order was based was too vague and imprecise for him to be found in contempt for his alleged failure to comply with the order. We agree.
“In either the civil or criminal contempt scenario, a person cannot be held in contempt for violating a court's order if the order is not sufficiently explicit or precise to put a party on notice of exactly what it must or must not do.” See Wilcoxon v. Moller, 132 So. 3d 281, 286–87 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (citing Marcus v. Marcus, 902 So. 2d 259, 262 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)). Here, the November 2, 2015 order requiring that Former Husband bring current, within ninety days, those expenses for which he had received documentation was too imprecise to subject Former Husband to the later adjudication of contempt for nonpayment of $3155.07 for the children's uncovered medical, dental, and optical expenses. That Former Husband, during this appeal, chose to no longer contest the sum determined to be owed does not ameliorate the error. We therefore vacate that portion of the September 16, 2016 order adjudicating Former Husband in contempt. We affirm the remaining aspects of the order without further discussion.
Appellate Case 5D17-2427—
The genesis of this appeal arose in 2016 when Former Husband claimed that the clerk of court's office advised him that its records showed that he had a credit of $4623.21 resulting from an overpayment of his alimony obligation and that it would begin applying this credit against Former Husband's future monthly child support payments. In reliance, Former Husband discontinued paying his monthly child support payments until this “credit” was fully utilized.
After not receiving child support, Former Wife filed a motion for contempt. On June 28, 2017, following a hearing held in February 2017, the court entered the order under review in this appeal, directing the clerk of court “to conduct an accounting of the record of payments of alimony and child support in this matter back to the beginning of the obligation(s)” and to report to the court its findings. In this same order, and prior to the contemporaneously-ordered accounting being performed, the court nonetheless directed the clerk of court to “correct” its records to show that, as of February 27, 2017, Former Husband owed child support arrearages in the sum of $6931.50. The court also denied Former Husband's request that his “credit” be applied towards his future child support payments.
Former Husband appealed. Because the clerk of court's accounting had not been performed, we conclude that the order contemporaneously determining Former Husband's child support arrearages as of February 27, 2017, was premature. As we more fully explain below, based upon the timing of our disposition of these appeals, we find it unnecessary to directly address Former Husband's argument that the trial court erred in refusing to apply his alimony credit against his then future child support payments.
Appellate Case 5D18-1467—
In the order under review in this third appeal, the trial court found Former Husband in willful contempt of court for his nonpayment of the $6931.50 arrearages. For similar reasons as those expressed in our disposition of the order under review in Case No. 5D17-2427, because the present record does not show that the trial court's previously ordered accounting of Former Husband's child support and alimony payments, if prepared, was ever admitted into evidence or considered by the trial court, we conclude that the trial court's order adjudicating Former Husband in contempt for nonpayment of this $6931.50 arrearage was also premature.
At present, the parties' two children have both attained the age of majority; and Former Husband's alimony obligation to Former Wife has ended. Thus, Former Husband has no future support obligations owed to Former Wife. Based on these facts, and with the benefit of hindsight, there appears to be a fairly clear path to a final resolution of the parties' dispute as to what, if any, child support or alimony obligations remain owed by Former Husband.
First, the total amount of alimony and child support payments that Former Husband was to have paid, plus any applicable clerk's fees, from January 1, 2012, until his last child support payment became due, is readily calculable.1 Second, other than for the months of January through March 2012, Former Husband's child support payments were to have all been paid through the clerk of court, meaning that the total amount of child support payments actually made by Former Husband is essentially determinable through the clerk of court's records. Third, our record indicates that beginning with at least the January 1, 2013 payment, Former Husband's alimony payments were also apparently paid by him through the clerk of court. Thus, like child support, the bulk of alimony payments made by Former Husband are calculable through the clerk of court's records. Fourth, because it does not appear that the clerk's accounting of Former Husband's payment history has ever been admitted into evidence or properly brought to the trial court's attention, a final accounting of all alimony and child support payments made by Former Husband through the clerk's office should be prepared by the clerk of court and presented to the trial court at a subsequent hearing.2
At that point, the accounting by the clerk of all payments paid by Former Husband through the clerk's office in the proceeding below can be compared to the total amount of child support and alimony Former Husband should have paid, thus allowing the trial court to preliminarily determine if Former Husband still owes money to Former Wife for what now essentially would be a child support or alimony arrearage. The parties should then be allowed to present all other relevant evidence at this hearing to address the accuracy of the clerk's final audit as well as Former Husband having paid child support or alimony payments to Former Wife prior to when his payments were to be made through the court registry. Based upon this information and evidence, the trial court can then make its final determination as to what, if any, additional monies are owed by Former Husband to Former Wife on his support obligations and thereafter fashion an appropriate remedy for repayment.
In sum, we vacate, in part, the order determining Former Husband's child support arrearages as of February 27, 2017, and the subsequent order adjudicating him in contempt for nonpayment of these arrearages; but we do so without prejudice to the trial court considering the imposition of future sanctions if it is later shown that Former Husband still owes child support or alimony to Former Wife and willfully fails to pay these monies. We also vacate, in part, the order finding Former Husband in contempt for violating the November 2, 2015 order; but we again do so without prejudice to the trial court imposing sanctions if Former Husband has willfully failed to pay his now uncontested share of the children's uncovered medical, dental, and optical expenses for 2015. We otherwise affirm the orders under review.
AFFIRMED, in part; ORDERS VACATED, in part.
FOOTNOTES
1. There is no suggestion in our record that Former Husband's $900 per month child support or $300 per month alimony obligations were ever modified by subsequent court order.
2. Although we mention this subsequent hearing, the parties are not foreclosed from resolving their dispute as to support monies allegedly still owed without further judicial intervention.
LAMBERT, J.
JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, and STARR, E.J., Associate Judge, concur.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: Case Nos.: 5D17-1109,
Decided: October 03, 2019
Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)