Court Opinion

ID: 9959759
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-12 16:03:05.113054+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:18:52.426989
License: Public Domain

FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
                STATE OF FLORIDA
                 _____________________________

                      Case No. 5D22-2800
                  LT Case No. 2020-DR-027023
                 _____________________________

JAMIE JOHNSON,

    Appellant,

    v.

KATARZYNA JOHNSON,

    Appellee.
                 _____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County.
Jigisa Patel-Dookhoo, Judge.

Robert Scott Hannan, of Law Offices of Robert S. Hannan, P.A.,
Indian Harbour Beach, for Appellant.

Adam M. Bird and Lesley-Anne Marks, of WhiteBird, PLLC,
Melbourne, for Appellee.

                         April 12, 2024

WALLIS, J.

    In this pending dissolution of marriage case, Jamie Johnson
(“Husband”) timely appeals two nonfinal orders: an order
enforcing prior temporary support orders and a corresponding
income deduction order. We have jurisdiction because the orders
grant Katarzyna Johnson (“Wife”) the right to immediate
monetary relief. Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3)(C)(iii)a. Because the
orders on appeal were not supported by evidence, granted relief
not requested, and misstated Husband’s support obligation, we
reverse.

        Husband’s Temporary Support Obligations

     Husband and Wife were married in 2004. They have two
minor children. In May 2020, Husband petitioned for dissolution
of marriage. Wife filed an answer and counterpetition seeking
alimony, child support, and attorney’s fees.

     On May 5, 2021, the trial court (predecessor Judge Robert
Segal) entered an Agreed Order on Motion for Temporary Relief
(“May 2021 order”), in which it found that Husband had the ability
to pay and Wife had a need for “the alimony agreed to herein.”
Accordingly, the court ordered Husband to “pay directly to Wife”
$1,200 in temporary monthly alimony and $295 in child support,
beginning April 1, 2021. In a handwritten notation, the court
stated that the Child Support Guidelines Worksheet (“Guidelines
Worksheet”) was “attached hereto*” rather than filed with the
clerk. The asterisk in the notation referenced the following
handwritten statement at the bottom of the order:

    * Wife’s financial affidavit income increased by $1,453 to
    account for alimony ($1,200) plus health insurance paid
    by Husband for Wife ($253). Husband’s income adjusted
    accordingly.

The Guidelines Worksheet included in Wife’s monthly gross
income “Alimony from this case per month” of $1,453. Thus, the
May 2021 order reflected monthly spousal support of $1,200 to be
paid directly to Wife and it acknowledged that Husband was also
paying Wife’s health insurance premiums of $253, but the attached
Guidelines Worksheet combined those two figures to reflect
alimony of $1,453 per month.1

    1 Based on this discrepancy, the parties disagreed below, and

continue to disagree on appeal, about the amount of temporary
monthly alimony and total amount of temporary alimony and
support Husband was required to pay directly to Wife. Husband
argues he was ordered to pay $1,200 in alimony and $295 in child
support for a total monthly support obligation of $1,495. He also

                                2
    Wife’s First Motion for Enforcement and Contempt

      In January 2022, Wife filed a motion for enforcement and
contempt alleging nonpayment of temporary alimony and child
support. The Court heard this motion on April 28, 2022. Although
Wife concedes that this hearing was not transcribed, she asserts
that the trial court verbally ordered Husband to immediately
resume monthly spousal support and child support obligations, as
ordered by the trial court in its May 5, 2021 Order, “in the total
amount of $1,748.00 per month.” Wife bases this assertion on the
“undersigned counsel’s notes from the hearing.”

acknowledges the court’s handwritten notation reflecting
“Husband’s payment of her health insurance in the amount of
$253.00,” but does not include that amount in the total amount of
support payable to Wife. Wife argues the court “ordered that
Husband directly pay Wife temporary spousal support in the
amount of $1,453.00 each month beginning on April 1, 2021, which
was comprised of $1,200.00 per month in alimony and $253.00 per
month to reimburse Wife for health insurance premiums.” She
bases this assertion on the handwritten notation at the bottom of
the May 2021 order and the $1,453 reflected for alimony in the
Child Support Guidelines Worksheet. To that amount, she adds
$295 in child support for a total monthly obligation of $1,748 “to
be paid by Husband to Wife.”

     The court’s handwritten notation is consistent with
Husband’s interpretation because it indicates that Wife’s health
insurance was being “paid by Husband for Wife.” That was a
reflection of the parties’ agreement, not an order of additional
support to be paid to Wife to reimburse her for health insurance
premiums that she was paying. In a subsequent order on
September 1, 2021, the trial court clarified that “[o]n May 5, 2021,
this Court entered an Order awarding Respondent temporary
alimony in the amount of $1,200.00 per month and child support
in the amount of $295.00 per month, for a total of $1,495.00 per
month, beginning on April 1, 2021.”

                                 3
     However, on June 21, 2022, the court entered an Order on
Respondent’s Motion for Contempt and Enforcement, which does
not support Wife’s assertion. The court found that Husband had
“willfully violated this Court’s Order dated September 1, 2021
wherein he was ordered to resume alimony and child support
obligations after November 4, 2021 and he did not make any
payments to date.” It then ordered Husband to “immediately
resume alimony and child support payments as ordered by the
Court on May 5, 2021,” but did not state the amount of alimony
and child support established in that order. The court also found
that Wife was entitled to the immediate entry of an income
deduction order, which the court would enter separately, but the
court did not enter a separate income deduction order. Finally, the
court reserved jurisdiction on the amount of Husband’s arrearages.

   Wife’s Second Motion for Enforcement and Contempt

      Just three days after this contempt order, on June 24, 2022,
Wife filed a second motion for enforcement and contempt again
alleging Husband’s nonpayment of temporary alimony and child
support. Although she acknowledged that the May 2021 order
required Husband to pay her “temporary alimony in the amount of
$1,200.00” per month, she claimed that on April, 28, 2022, the
predecessor judge “verbally ordered [Husband] to immediately
resume alimony and child support obligations as ordered by the
Court on May 5, 2021 in the total amount of $1,748.00 per month.”
Wife alleged that Husband had failed to comply with previous
court orders by not resuming his temporary alimony and child
support payments. She did not allege the amount of arrearages
owed by Husband. She requested that the court find Husband in
contempt, order him to pay his “outstanding alimony and child
support obligations,” and enter an income deduction order to
ensure payment of child support and alimony obligations.

      On September 19, 2022, the court (successor Judge Jigisa
Patel-Dookhoo) heard Wife’s second contempt motion. Neither
party presented any testimony or other evidence at the hearing.
Instead, the court heard arguments by the parties’ attorneys. At
the beginning of the hearing, Husband objected to proceeding
further because, inter alia, the motion failed to specify the amount

                                 4
of arrears owed.   The court allowed Wife to proceed with her
motion.

     Wife argued that the evidence supporting her motion had
already been accepted by the predecessor judge at the July 6
hearing on Husband’s second motion to modify or terminate
support. She also noted that the predecessor judge had previously
found Husband in contempt for not paying and had reserved
jurisdiction to determine the amount of arrears. Wife asserted
that she was simply trying to enforce the prior contempt order
because Husband was not paying all his obligations. She was not
there to litigate the arrearage amount.

     The parties argued about the amount of Husband’s monthly
obligations. Husband argued that the May 2021 order required
him to pay $1,200 in temporary alimony and $295 in child support,
for a total monthly obligation of $1,495. Wife argued that he owed
those amounts plus $253 for Wife’s health insurance, for a total
monthly obligation of $1,748. Wife was seeking all three amounts
because Husband was no longer paying any of them.

    When the court asked Wife’s attorney how much Husband
owed in arrearages, her counsel responded, in part:
           Again, depends on your calculation, Your Honor.
      We had—Judge Segal reserved on the arrearage,
      which we still need to come back before the Court.
      We’re not here today to talk about the arrearage, Your
      Honor. We’re here to get payments coming in for the
      client.
            So that’s what our order for enforcement and
      contempt is, is for an order to get the 1,495. We think
      it’s 1,700 and add the 253, because he was credited for
      the $253. His income was reduced by $253 for wife’s
      health insurance. So that was a measure of spousal
      support because it was insurance being paid by Mr.
      Johnson for my client. That’s why that number is
      included. That’s why we have $1,748 because he’s no
      longer paying that. So that’s where that number
      comes from.

                                5
    Wife’s attorney reiterated that Wife was seeking to get
Husband to start paying his obligations and not seeking to litigate
the amount of arrearages owed. He stated, “[T]he arrearage is a
separate issue. We’re going to have to address that separately. I
understand that.”

     After hearing the parties’ arguments, the court requested
written closing arguments from each party detailing the “amount
that’s being sought for the amount that [Husband was] currently
behind . . . .” Husband’s attorney objected that “there’s been no
testimony from my client as to present ability to pay whether his
nonpayment is willful.”

     In his closing argument, Husband argued, inter alia, that: (1)
Wife misstated Husband’s monthly support obligations; (2) Wife
failed to allege the amount of his arrearages; and (3) there was no
evidence presented at the hearing for the court to rule on Wife’s
contempt motion. In her closing argument, Wife reiterated that
she was not seeking to establish the amount of arrearages owed,
as that would require an evidentiary hearing. Instead, she was
seeking:
      (a) yet another order enforcing [Husband’s] monthly
      temporary support obligation and finding [Husband]
      in willful contempt for his failure to comply therewith,
      (b) directing [Husband] to immediately and
      continuously pay to [Wife] $1,453 in temporary
      alimony and $295 in temporary child support per
      month, and (c) finding [Wife] is entitled to recover from
      [Husband] her reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
      incurred in relation to her Second Motion to Enforce
      and the proceedings thereon.

                        Orders on Appeal

    On October 28, 2022, the court entered the two orders now
being appealed: (1) an Order on Respondent’s Motion for
Enforcement and For Contempt of Orders Dated September 1,
2021 and June 21, 2022 (“Enforcement Order”); and (2) an Income
Withholding for Support and Florida Addendum (“Income
Deduction Order”). In the Enforcement Order, the court first

                                 6
characterized Husband’s obligations established in the May 2021
order consistent with Wife’s interpretation, stating that Husband
“was ordered on May 5, 2021 to pay temporary alimony to the
Respondent in the amount of $1,453.00 each month beginning on
April 1, 2021 which was comprised of $1,200.00 per month in
spousal support and $253.00 per month to reimburse Respondent
for insurance premiums.” It added that the May 2021 order also
required Husband to pay Wife $295.00 per month in child
support.” The court further found that at the April 28, 2022
hearing on Wife’s first motion for enforcement and contempt, the
court found that the predecessor judge had “verbally ordered the
Petitioner to immediately resume alimony and child support
obligations as previously ordered by the Court on May 5, 2021 in
the total amount of $1,748.00 per month.” The court acknowledged
that Husband’s counsel “raised arguments that the Motion did not
encapsulate the entire amount owned by him. However, the Court
relies on Judge Segal’s prior Order to determine the total
arrearage amount.”

       Regarding nonpayment, the court found that Husband had
“failed to resume the temporary alimony and child support
payments on or about November 5, 2021 and in the months
thereafter.” It also found that Husband had failed to comply with
its prior orders “dated May 5, 2021, September 1, 2021, verbally
given on April 28, 2022,” and June 21, 2022, “by not resuming
payments of the monthly alimony and child support obligations in
the total amount of $1,748.00 per month.”

      The court found that Husband had the present ability to pay
these obligations based on a previous order denying Husband’s
second motion to modify or terminate his temporary support
obligations. However, it also stated, “The Court does not find
Respondent in willful contempt and does not make any findings
concerning Respondent’s ability to pay.”

      Based on those findings, the court ordered Husband to
“immediately resume making monthly alimony and child support
payments as previously ordered by this Court on May 5, 2021,
April 28, 2022, and June 21, 2022.” It also ordered “the entry of
an Income Withholding Order reflecting that Petitioner shall pay
20% of the arrearages totaling $18,556.00, in addition to $1,453.00

                                7
in temporary alimony and $295.00 in temporary child support per
month until the outstanding arrearage amount is paid in full.”

       In a separate Income Deduction Order, the court ordered a
total of $5,464.45 to be deducted from Husband’s monthly income.
That amount included $295 for current child support, $262 for
past-due child support, $1,453 for current spousal support,
$3,449.20 for past-due spousal support, and a $5.25 Florida
Disbursement Unit Fee.

                           Discussion

       Orders on motions for contempt are presumed correct unless
there is no competent, substantial evidence in the record to
support them. Finch v. Cribbs, 376 So. 3d 63, 68 (Fla. 1st DCA
2021), as clarified on denial of reh’g (Nov. 2, 2022). In a civil
contempt proceeding for failure to pay child support or alimony,
the movant must show that a prior court order directed the party
to pay the support or alimony, and that the party in default has
failed to make the ordered payments. Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d
1274, 1278 (Fla. 1985).

     Husband correctly asserts that the orders on appeal must be
reversed for two reasons. First the trial court denied Husband due
process by determining the amount of arrearages owed and
ordering him to pay them when that relief was not sought by Wife.
See, e.g., Cruz v. Matos, 356 So. 3d 251, 252–53 (Fla. 4th DCA 2023)
(reversing contempt judgment because court’s calculation and
assessment of arrearages was done on its own initiative, rather
than requested by party or tried by consent; noting that granting
relief not requested violates due process); Wallace v. Wallace, 605
So. 2d 504, 505 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (“Because the wife’s motion
did not request the relief awarded, and the wife submitted no
evidence on this issue, it was error to award such relief.”). Wife
did not allege the amount of arrearages owed in her enforcement
motion. At the hearing, Husband’s counsel objected to lack of
notice of the arrearages issue. Even after the court allowed Wife
to proceed, Wife’s counsel could not give the court the amount owed
and he repeatedly argued that Wife was not seeking to litigate the
amount of arrearages owed. Accordingly, the trial court erred by

                                 8
determining the amount of arrearages and ordering withholding of
arrearages when that relief was not noticed or requested by Wife.

     Second, the orders on appeal were not supported by
competent, substantial evidence. Because Wife failed to present
any evidence at the hearing, she necessarily failed to meet her
burden of proving that he failed to pay the required obligations.
See Bowen, 471 So. 2d at 1278. Although the May 2021 order
established Husband’s obligation to pay temporary alimony and
child support, Wife incorrectly alleged in her motion and argued at
the hearing that that order obligated Husband to pay $1,453 per
month in alimony instead of $1,200. However, as we previously
discussed in Footnote 1, the May 2021 order only required
Husband to pay Wife $1,200 per month in temporary alimony.
While the May 2021 order recognized Husband’s agreement to also
pay $253 in monthly premiums for Wife’s health insurance, it did
not order him to pay that amount directly to Wife as
reimbursement for those premiums. Although the May 2021 order
could have been clearer on this point, the court’s subsequent order
on September 1, 2021, clarified that the May 2021 order directed
Husband to pay “temporary alimony in the amount of $1,200.00
per month and child support in the amount of $295.00 per month,
for a total of $1,495.00 per month.”

     Husband’s payment of Wife’s health insurance premiums was
a separate obligation necessitating a different remedy for failure
to pay. Specifically, Wife’s remedy for Husband’s nonpayment of
her health insurance premiums is not arrearages for the amount
of nonpayment. It is the amount of out-of-pocket medical expenses
Wife incurred from being uninsured during the time Husband was
obligated to pay her insurance premiums. See Bishop v. Bishop,
667 So. 2d 246, 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (affirming portion of
contempt order finding Husband failed to pay children’s health
insurance premiums and ordering him to pay their incurred
medical expenses). Consequently, the trial court’s finding that the
May 2021 order required Husband to pay $1,453 in temporary
monthly alimony, “which was comprised of $1,200.00 per month in
spousal support and $253.00 per month to reimburse [Wife] for
insurance premiums,” is not supported by the May 2021 order. Cf.
DeMello v. Buckman, 914 So. 2d 1090, 1093 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
(“A judge cannot base contempt upon noncompliance with

                                9
something an order does not say.” (quoting Keitel v. Keitel, 716 So.
2d 842, 845 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (Farmer, J., concurring))).

     The court’s reliance on the predecessor judge’s alleged verbal
order on April 28, 2022, to pay $1,748 per month was also error
because Wife presented no evidence of this alleged verbal order.
Wife concedes on appeal that the April 28, 2022, verbal order was
not transcribed and the predecessor judge’s subsequent order of
June 21, 2022, does not contain any such finding. Thus, the
successor judge’s finding that the predecessor judge gave such a
verbal order was based on Wife’s attorney’s argument at the
hearing, which in turn was based on his notes from the prior
hearing. Neither an attorney’s notes from a prior hearing nor his
arguments to the court is evidence. See, e.g., Reese v. Reese, 363
So. 3d 1202, 1207 n.3 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023). Accordingly, the trial
court’s findings as to the amount of Husband’s temporary alimony
obligations were not supported by competent, substantial
evidence.

     Wife also failed to present any evidence that Husband failed
to pay his temporary alimony and child support, or the specific
amounts of such nonpayment. Although Wife alleged and argued
that Husband did not meet his obligations, she did not prove it
with evidence at the hearing. See Bowen, 471 So. 2d at 1278;
Alfred v. Dep’t of Rev., 204 So. 3d 583, 585 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016)
(reversing contempt order where no evidence presented on
whether appellant failed to pay child support and how much he
was in arrears). While the predecessor judge previously found
Husband in contempt for failure to pay these obligations, the
successor judge’s reliance on that order to support its independent
determination that Husband failed to pay was mistaken because
the predecessor judge did not determine the amount of Husband’s
nonpayment up to that date and Wife did not present any proof of
nonpayment from the June 21, 2022 order to the September 29,
2022 hearing.

    Our reversal of the orders on appeal for the reasons above
renders moot Husband’s remaining arguments.

      REVERSED.

                                10
LAMBERT and PRATT, JJ., concur.

                _____________________________

    Not final until disposition of any timely and
    authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or
    9.331.
               _____________________________

                             11