Summary
In Cummings v. Cummings, 685 So.2d 101 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997), we had directed the trial Judge to determine two things: what portion of a purge amount was necessary for support, and his current ability to pay such amount.
Summary of this case from Cummings v. CummingsOpinion
Case Nos. 96-2937 and 96-3760
Opinion filed January 8, 1997
Consolidated appeals of non-final orders from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County; John L. Phillips, Judge; L.T. Case No. CD 95-2684 FC.
Arthur J. England, Jr., Elliot H. Scherker, and John G. Crabtree of Greenberg, Traurig, Hoffman, Lipoff, Rosen Quentel, P.A., Miami, and Donald J. Sasser, Jorge M. Cestero, and Thomas J. Sasser of Donald J. Sasser, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Philip M. Burlington of Caruso, Burlington, Bohn Compiani, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellee.
We reverse the contempt orders. On remand we direct the trial court to determine what portion of the purge amount was necessary for support. Further, we direct that appellant's present ability to pay also be determined as the record before this court reflects that appellant's pending bankruptcy frustrates same.
GLICKSTEIN, STONE and FARMER, JJ., concur.