clarification on possible contempt

[poste]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida
I live in Florida. Almost a year ago, I was ordered to pay money for my ex-partner and I did not pay. In that order, the court nowhere stated that I have the financial ability to pay that money. No testimony was taken from me (when issuing that order) about my financial ability. Now my ex-partner filed a motion for contempt of failing to pay money.

I read Faircloth v. Faircloth 339 So. 2d 650 (1976) in which the court said

"It is well established that a contempt order for refusing to obey an order of the court must be based on an affirmative finding that it is within the power of the defendant to obey the order and such finding must be made to appear on the face of the order of commitment, else it is void. State ex rel. Trezevant v. McLeod, 126 Fla. 229, 170 So. 735 (1936). No such finding of financial ability of the appellant to pay appears on the face of the order in the case sub judice and thus, it is void."

It seems I am fine based on the above statements.

However, I am confused with another statement in the same case which says as follows and I request your explanation/clarification on its language:

“Therefore, a finding that the debtor ordered to pay is able to pay and willfully refuses to do so is the touchstone of the proceeding: the essential fact, found to be a fact, which validates the process.”

Is the meaning of the above sentence same as the following sentence:

If a debtor is ordered to pay and if the court found that the debtor has the ability to pay and if the debtor has willfully refuses to do so is the touchstone of the proceeding: the essential fact, found to be a fact, which validates the process

 

[FlyingRon]

It helps if you read the decisions entirely rather than relying on snippets. The order here is *NOT* the order that you pay support, it is the order of contempt. In order to enforce the comtempt order, the order must state the two essential requirements:

1. You are able to comply (or were able to)
2. You won't comply (or didn't when you could).

Hence, you are "not OK."

There was no obligation for the court to take any "testimony" from you about your ability to pay prior to issuing the original support order, nor are they obliged to now. If you are indeed UNABLE to comply, rather than just UNWILLING, then you have to make that affirmative defense at the contempt hearing.

 

[poste]

Thank you. I have no money to pay when the order was issued (almost a year ago) and any time after that (until now and will be anytime in the near future). Hearing on the motion of my ex-partner is not yet scheduled.


Because of the fact that an order issued (almost a year ago) means that the Court found (almost a year ago) that I have the ability to pay that money?


“Therefore, a finding that the debtor ordered to pay is able to pay and willfully refuses to do so…”
Is the above phrase same as the following
“Therefore, a finding that the debtor ordered to pay and a finding that the debtor is able to pay and a finding that the debtor is willfully refuses to do so…”
OR the following

“Therefore, a finding that the debtor ordered to pay (therefore the debtor is able to pay) and willfully refuses to do so…”

 

[Zigner]

It's too late to complain about the order now.

 

[poste]

Thanks. I am not planning to complain about the order now. I wish to get clarification on the language provided in the order Faircloth v. Faircloth 339 So. 2d 650 (1976). This clarification will help me prepare my defense during the hearing on contempt.

“Therefore, a finding that the debtor ordered to pay is able to pay and willfully refuses to do so…” (this phrase is from Faircloth v. Faircloth 339 So. 2d 650 (1976)) but the language is confusing to me.

Is the above phrase same as the following phrase

(i). “Therefore, a finding that the debtor ordered to pay and a finding that the debtor is able to pay and a finding that the debtor is willfully refuses to do so…”
OR same as the the following phrase

(ii). “Therefore, a finding that the debtor ordered to pay (therefore the debtor is able to pay but no explicit finding was made on this) and willfully refuses to do so…”

Please let me know if (i) is correct or (ii) is correct.

 

[FlyingRon]

The order for you to pay support doesn't have to show you're capable of complying, though the impossibility of you being able to comply had been brought up at the time, you probably would have had the order changed.

That you are able to comply also doesn't need to be brought up at the time the contempt hearing is instigated.

That you were able to comply and you didn't are essential things that the court must determine before issuing the order that finds you in contempt (and that order must state those things).

 

[poste]

Thanks.

In Faircloth v. Faircloth 339 So. 2d 650 (1976), the said
“That decree, long since final and therefore invulnerable, is itself a finding that, as of the moment of its entry, Mr. Faircloth had the ability to make the required payments. Orr v. Orr, 141 Fla. 112, 192 So. 466 (1939).”

I already received an order for payment a year ago. Based on what the court said in Faircloth v. Faircloth 339 So. 2d 650 (1976) above, does it mean that the court, in my case, already found that I was able to pay that money when the order was issued almost a year ago against me? If so, now, the Court does not need to prove that I was able to pay the money one year ago (but I did not pay). Based on this, can I be held in contempt, although, I never had /has the ability to pay that amount? This is what bothering me.

 

[Zigner]

Thanks.

In Faircloth v. Faircloth 339 So. 2d 650 (1976), the said
“That decree, long since final and therefore invulnerable, is itself a finding that, as of the moment of its entry, Mr. Faircloth had the ability to make the required payments. Orr v. Orr, 141 Fla. 112, 192 So. 466 (1939).”

I already received an order for payment a year ago. Based on what the court said in Faircloth v. Faircloth 339 So. 2d 650 (1976) above, does it mean that the court, in my case, already found that I was able to pay that money when the order was issued almost a year ago against me? If so, now, the Court does not need to prove that I was able to pay the money one year ago (but I did not pay). Based on this, can I be held in contempt, although, I never had /has the ability to pay that amount? This is what bothering me.

As I said, you can't complain about something that happened a year ago. I'm sorry, but you refuse to see how that statement applies to your situation.

 

[poste]

Thanks.

I clearly understood that, now, I cannot change or complain about the order I received one year ago.

However, my question is whether that order (entered one year ago) will be treated, by the court, as a proof that I had the ability (one year ago) to pay that amount (and I did not pay) although I did not have that ability? If so, how can I convince the court?

 

[Just Blue]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Florida
I live in Florida. Almost a year ago, I was ordered to pay money for my ex-partner and I did not pay. In that order, the court nowhere stated that I have the financial ability to pay that money. No testimony was taken from me (when issuing that order) about my financial ability. Now my ex-partner filed a motion for contempt of failing to pay money.

I read Faircloth v. Faircloth 339 So. 2d 650 (1976) in which the court said

"It is well established that a contempt order for refusing to obey an order of the court must be based on an affirmative finding that it is within the power of the defendant to obey the order and such finding must be made to appear on the face of the order of commitment, else it is void. State ex rel. Trezevant v. McLeod, 126 Fla. 229, 170 So. 735 (1936). No such finding of financial ability of the appellant to pay appears on the face of the order in the case sub judice and thus, it is void."

It seems I am fine based on the above statements.

However, I am confused with another statement in the same case which says as follows and I request your explanation/clarification on its language:

“Therefore, a finding that the debtor ordered to pay is able to pay and willfully refuses to do so is the touchstone of the proceeding: the essential fact, found to be a fact, which validates the process.”

Is the meaning of the above sentence same as the following sentence:

If a debtor is ordered to pay and if the court found that the debtor has the ability to pay and if the debtor has willfully refuses to do so is the touchstone of the proceeding: the essential fact, found to be a fact, which validates the process

For my clareification is this a business partnership or a relationship?

 

[poste]

To add more fuel to this, in Faircloth v. Faircloth 339 So. 2d 650 (1976), the court also said

“We hold a trial judge must make an affirmative finding that either (1) the petitioner presently has the ability to comply with the order and willfully refuses to do so, or (2) that the petitioner previously had the ability to comply, but divested himself of that ability through his fault or neglect designed to frustrate the intent and purpose of the order."

 

[poste]

For my clareification is this a business partnership or a relationship?

Thanks. A relationship.

 

[PayrollHRGuy]

Thanks.

I clearly understood that, now, I cannot change or complain about the order I received one year ago.

However, my question is whether that order (entered one year ago) will be treated, by the court, as a proof that I had the ability (one year ago) to pay that amount (and I did not pay) although I did not have that ability? If so, how can I convince the court?

Because you didn't do what was necessary to show that the order was wrong IN WHATEVER WAY in a timely manner you have forfeited the use of any error in the future.

 

[poste]

Thanks for your advices.

I have an additional query. The order issued by the trial court, almost a year ago ordering me to pay money, has one long big sentence. That sentence is the heart/key of the entire order, and all other sentences in that order are typical statements found in most of such orders. Earlier, I requested this forum to provide advice on the issues related to the first phrase of that key sentence. The second phase of that key sentence has additional conditions on money payment but the language of that 2nd phrase is not clear and unambiguous and I have shown that order to two different professional English experts and they also said the same (sorry, I cannot list that language here, which, otherwise, will reveal some personal information). I read some law which says that the order should be unambiguous to hold a person in contempt of that order. However, my order is not. Florida 4th DCA has jurisdiction over this matter if I appeal and that court judged a case on the matter of clarity and ambiguity: Hokanstrom v. Env., 127 So.3d 798 (4th DCA).

If a phrase is unclear and ambiguous, will that sentence or the entire order be ambiguous? I wish to receive your advice on this matter. I found the feedback provided in this forum is highly useful.

 

[poste]

I request your advice.