Narrative Opinion Summary
The appellate court reversed the trial court's Order on Writ of Civil Attachment due to insufficient evidence supporting the trial court's finding that the appellant had the ability to pay the specified purge amount. The decision referenced precedents, including *Stebbins v. Stebbins* and *Perez v. Perez*, indicating a lack of competent substantial evidence. The judges concurring with the decision were ERVIN, WEBSTER, and THOMAS.
Legal Issues Addressed
Requirement of Competent Substantial Evidencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The reversal was based on the absence of competent substantial evidence, aligning with precedents set by *Stebbins v. Stebbins* and *Perez v. Perez*.
Reasoning: The decision referenced precedents, including *Stebbins v. Stebbins* and *Perez v. Perez*, indicating a lack of competent substantial evidence.
Reversal of Trial Court Orderssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court reversed the trial court's order due to insufficient evidence supporting the finding regarding the appellant's ability to pay.
Reasoning: The appellate court reversed the trial court's Order on Writ of Civil Attachment due to insufficient evidence supporting the trial court's finding that the appellant had the ability to pay the specified purge amount.