Background
In the parties’ dissolution case, the Miami-Dade Circuit Court entered a February 2025 temporary-support order after finding that Juan Pablo Fuentes Neira had net monthly income of at least $24,023.25. The order required temporary support and child-support payments, including payments toward arrearages and retroactive child support.
After the wife filed successive contempt motions alleging nonpayment, the trial court found the husband in contempt. Its September 4, 2025 amended order required him to pay a $65,115 purge amount or surrender for incarceration. Although the court found that he had the present ability to pay, it did not identify any specific source of funds available to him to satisfy the purge.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District reversed the amended contempt order. Under Florida Family Law Rule 12.615(e), an order imposing incarceration for civil contempt must contain a separate affirmative finding that the contemnor can comply with the purge condition and state the factual basis for that finding.
The trial court did not identify a bank account, liquid asset, available funds, or legally enforceable right from which the husband could pay the purge amount. Credibility concerns and missing documentation did not substitute for an evidence-based finding tied to a concrete, presently available source of funds. Without a purge condition within his power to satisfy, incarceration would transform the civil sanction into criminal contempt without the required constitutional protections.
Key Takeaways
- A civil-contempt purge provision requiring payment must be supported by an identified, presently available source of funds.
- A finding that a support obligor is not credible does not alone establish present ability to pay a purge amount.
- Courts must assess the contemnor’s own assets and available rights, not relatives’ assets or speculative outside assistance.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces that civil contempt incarceration is coercive, not punitive: the contemnor must retain a real “key to the cell.” In support cases, trial courts must make explicit, evidence-based findings connecting the purge amount to funds the obligor can presently access.