Case Name: Myles T. SAVERY, Appellant, v. Patricia C. SAVERY, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2004-04-21
Citations: 870 So. 2d 920
Docket Number: No. 4D03-1144
Parties: Myles T. SAVERY, Appellant, v. Patricia C. SAVERY, Appellee.
Judges: WARNER, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 870
Pages: 920–922

Head Matter:
Myles T. SAVERY, Appellant, v. Patricia C. SAVERY, Appellee.
No. 4D03-1144.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
April 21, 2004.
John F. Schütz and Carina M. Leeson of Manoff & Schütz, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
George E. Gelb of Kramer, Ali, Fleck Hughes, Gelb & Bornstein, Jupiter, for appellee.

Opinion:
KLEIN, J.
The Saverys' marriage was dissolved in 1994, but this court reversed the award of child support and remanded for the trial court to make specific findings and follow the guidelines. Savery v. Savery, 670 So.2d 1034 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). This appeal arises from appellant having been recently held in contempt for failure to pay child support, and found to owe an arrear-age. He contends that we must reverse because, after our reversing in 1996 there was no order requiring him to pay child support in effect. We agree.
After the wife obtained a reversal of the child support award in 1996, the husband continued to voluntarily pay the child support required under the original judgment, but reduced it when one of the children reached majority. It was not until 2001 that either party sought to establish a support order pursuant to the reversal in 1996.
When a judgment is entirely reversed it is as if the judgment had never been entered. Smith v. Smith, 118 So.2d 204 (Fla.1960). Applying that principle to the partial reversal as to child support in this case, it follows that there was no court order requiring payment of child support in effect. The husband could not accordingly be found in contempt nor liable for an arrearage, because there was no obligation to pay. The order awarding attorney's fees must also be reversed because it contains no findings of fact. Zucker v. Zucker, 774 So.2d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001).
Reversed.
WARNER, J., concurs.
POLEN, J., concurs specially with opinion.