Rojo v. Rojo
2012 Fla. App. LEXIS 5927
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Dissolution judgment (Aug 2009) awarded husband five properties in Mexico to wife for transfer within 90 days; granted wife primary custody with husband to have summer/winter timesharing in Mexico.
- In Nov 2010, trial court denied contempt for property transfers, citing ongoing efforts; court noted reunification issues with older child but attempted to facilitate younger child’s relationship with father.
- Upon continued non-transfer of properties and failure of child to travel to Mexico, husband sought contempt; May 2011 hearing held; wife sought an evidentiary hearing.
- Trial court found wife in contempt for property transfers and for not sending child to Mexico, imposing $100 per day penalties on both issues.
- Court later found error: contempt for child travel was improper because order did not command wife to personally accompany child and airline would not allow travel due to the child’s hysterical state; and penalty for property transfer lacked consideration of wife’s ability to pay.
- On remand, court should reassess sanctions in light of wife’s finances; reaffirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Contempt for failure to transfer properties | Wife failed to transfer; actions warranted contempt | Husband merits contempt for noncompliance | Affirmed contempt for property transfers |
| Contempt for minor child traveling to Mexico | Contempt based on travel order | Order did not require wife to accompany child; travel infeasible | Abused discretion; reversed contempt for child travel |
| Sanctions amount and financial ability | Penalties appropriate given noncompliance | Amount should reflect ability to pay | Remanded to assess ability to pay and recalculate sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Parisi v. Broward Cnty., 769 So.2d 359 (Fla. 2000) (contempt powers and ability-to-pay considerations in sanctions)
- Smith v. State, 954 So.2d 1191 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (caution in exercise of contempt powers; remedial civil contempt standards)
- Dep’t of Children & Families v. R.H., 819 So.2d 858 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (civil contempt is remedial; coercive sanctions are avoidable through obedience)
- DeMello v. Buckman, 914 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (appellate review of contempt judgments; standard of review for abuse or fundamental error)