Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Fishman v. Fishman
Citations: 656 So. 2d 1250; 1995 WL 48441Docket: 83243
Court: Supreme Court of Florida; February 8, 1995; Florida; State Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of Florida reviewed the case of Petra Fishman v. J. Robert Fishman, concerning the enforceability of attorney's fees through contempt related to visitation rights and enforcement. The District Court of Appeal had certified a question of great public importance regarding whether contempt could be used to ensure payment of attorney's fees ordered due to one spouse's failure to comply with visitation rights involving their minor child. Following the divorce, Petra was awarded custody, while J. Robert received visitation rights and was ordered to pay child support. Petra was previously held in contempt for not adhering to visitation orders, and the court ordered her to pay $2,875 in attorney's fees to J. Robert’s attorney, which she contested by paying only $10 monthly. J. Robert subsequently moved for Petra to be held in contempt for her failure to pay the full amount. The trial court found that Petra willfully violated the fee order, had the means to pay, and ordered her to pay $1,000 within five days or face incarceration. The Fourth District Court upheld this finding, stating that the enforcement of visitation rights justified the contempt order, despite Petra's argument that the attorney's fee order could not be enforced through contempt. The court emphasized that obligations related to spousal and child support are considered personal duties to both the former spouse and society, rather than debts, thus permitting enforcement through civil contempt. The ruling noted that civil contempt is valid only if the individual has the ability to comply with the court's order to avoid imprisonment. No Florida court has previously determined whether contempt can enforce payment of attorney's fees linked to visitation enforcement. The Petitioner argues that since she does not owe spousal or child support, the attorney's fee award constitutes a debt and must be enforced through creditor measures, not contempt. However, the court rejects this argument, stating the fee award is directly connected to enforcing the Respondent's visitation rights with their minor child. The Petitioner acknowledges that civil contempt is applicable for enforcing child visitation orders. The court finds no justification for differentiating between the enforcement of attorney's fees in support contexts versus visitation contexts. The enforcement of visitation rights and related attorney's fees is deemed equally crucial for the child's best interests. The court concludes that if a former spouse willfully disobeys an attorney's fee order and can pay the required amount to avoid incarceration, contempt powers should apply. Thus, the court affirms that civil contempt can enforce attorney's fees owed for visitation enforcement. The decision below is approved, with all justices except Anstead concurring.