Court Opinion

ID: 9956981
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-03 15:04:24.933233+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:05.393026
License: Public Domain

DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA
                         SECOND DISTRICT

                      SANDRA EPPERSON RICH,

                               Appellant,

                                   v.

     JOHN D. RICH; ARNOLD R. RICH; BANNUM, INC.; KENTUCKY
     MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC.; and 656 R/E VENTURES, INC.,

                               Appellees.

                             No. 2D20-707

                              April 3, 2024

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Christopher Labruzzo,
Judge.

David A. Maney of Maney, Damsker & Jones, P.A., Tampa, for Appellant.

Michael J. Park of Park, Ossian, Barnaky & Park, P.A., Clearwater, for
Appellee John D. Rich.

No appearance for remaining Appellees.

NORTHCUTT, Judge.
     Sandra Rich challenges an order that held her in contempt because
she had not paid attorneys' fees to her former husband, John Rich, in
accordance with a prior fee award. We reverse because the underlying
rulings upon which the contempt finding was based have been
disapproved.
     In case number 2D20-440, this court reversed aspects of the
Riches' divorce judgment and we remanded for a new trial. See Rich v.
Rich, 337 So. 3d 138 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022). Then, in case number 2D19-
2721, we reversed an award of attorneys' fees and costs to the former
husband because the award was premised on many of the findings that
had been reversed in case number 2D20-440. See Rich v. Rich, 346 So.
3d 1266, 1267 (Fla. 2d DCA 2022). The order on appeal in the instant
case held the former wife in contempt for failing to pay the fee award that
we set aside in case number 2D19-2721.
     As the former husband correctly concedes, the contempt order
must be reversed. See Wiesenthal v. Wiesenthal, 154 So. 3d 488, 489
(Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (reversing a contempt order after the fee order upon
which it was based was reversed in a companion appeal).
     Having reversed both the fee award and the resulting contempt
order, we find no basis for permitting the former husband to retain
money paid to him thereunder. See Chopin & Chopin, LP v. Brennan, 178
So. 3d 509, 510-11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) (holding that a party holding
funds paid pursuant to a vacated contempt order must reimburse the
funds to the other party). On remand, if the former wife establishes that
she has made any payment required by the contempt order or the fee
award upon which it was based, she will be "entitled to reimbursement in
the amount paid." See id.
     Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this
opinion.

CASANUEVA and SILBERMAN, JJ., Concur.

Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.

                                      2