In a recent 2025 decision, Phanord v. Phanord, the Florida Third District Court of Appeal reversed a civil contempt order against a Former Husband for unpaid child support. The case involved a 1992 divorce, and the Former Wife waited approximately 30 years—and 20 years after the youngest child was an adult—to file her motion for contempt. When the Former Husband attempted to argue the equitable defense of “laches,” claiming the extreme delay prejudiced his ability to defend himself, the general magistrate refused to consider it. The magistrate ruled that the Former Husband had “waived” this defense by not filing a formal written answer to the contempt motion.
The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the magistrate’s ruling was a denial of due process. The court clarified a critical point of procedure: a motion for contempt is not a “pleading.” Therefore, the Former Husband was not required to file a written answer with affirmative defenses. He was entitled to raise his laches defense for the first time at the evidentiary hearing. The case was reversed and sent back, affirming that individuals in Tampa must have a full and fair opportunity to be heard on all relevant defenses in a contempt proceeding.
Understanding Civil Contempt in Florida Family Law
In Florida, a court order, such as a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, is not a suggestion. It is a binding directive. When a party fails to comply with a direct order to pay child support or alimony, the other party’s primary remedy is to file a motion for civil contempt.
It is essential to understand the unique nature of civil contempt. Unlike criminal contempt, which is designed to punish a party for past misconduct, civil contempt is a coercive tool. Its purpose is to compel a party to comply with the court’s order. In the context of unpaid support, the goal is to get the non-paying party (the “payor”) to pay what they owe.
The process for a civil contempt hearing in Tampa generally follows these steps:
- Motion: The party who is owed support (the “payee”) files a sworn motion for contempt. This motion must state the specific terms of the court order and the facts of the payor’s failure to comply.
- Evidentiary Hearing: The court schedules an evidentiary hearing. This is a mini-trial where both sides can present evidence and testimony.
- The Burden of Proof: At the hearing, the payee has the initial burden to establish two things: (1) there was a prior, valid court order directing the payment of support, and (2) the payor has failed to pay all or part of that support. This is typically straightforward, often established by introducing the final judgment and the payor’s payment history.
- The Burden Shift: Once the payee proves non-payment, the burden shifts to the payor. The payor must then prove they did not willfully violate the order. The most common and effective way to do this is to demonstrate a lack of ability to pay.
This burden shift is where many contempt proceedings are won or lost. A payor must present clear and convincing evidence of their inability to pay, such as bank statements, job-search logs, or medical records, to explain their non-compliance. A Tampa divorce lawyer can be critical in preparing this evidence to defend against a finding of contempt.
If the court finds that the payor did have the ability to pay but simply chose not to, it will find that party in contempt. The court will then order a “purge” amount—a sum of money the payor must pay to be “purged” of the contempt. The court must make a separate finding that the payor has the present ability to pay this purge amount.
The Critical Legal Error in Phanord: Pleading vs. Motion
The magistrate’s mistake in the Phanord case was technical, but its consequences were profound. The magistrate’s refusal to hear the laches defense was based on a misunderstanding of the difference between a “pleading” and a “motion.”
In Florida law, these terms are not interchangeable.
A “pleading” is a formal, foundational legal document that frames a lawsuit. This includes an initial Petition for Dissolution of Marriage, a Supplemental Petition to Modify a Final Judgment, or an Answer to one of those petitions. The Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure state that when a party files an “Answer” to a “pleading,” they must include all of their “affirmative defenses.” An affirmative defense is a legal argument that, even if the other party’s allegations are true, the defending party still wins for a separate reason (like the statute of limitations, waiver, or laches).
A “motion,” on the other hand, is simply a request for the court to do something within an existing case. A Motion for Contempt, a Motion for Temporary Relief, or a Motion to Compel Discovery are all examples.
The Phanord appellate court ruled that the Former Wife’s motion for contempt was not a “pleading.” Because it was not a pleading, no rule required the Former Husband to file a formal, written “Answer” to it. Therefore, he could not have “waived” his affirmative defenses by failing to file a document he was never required to file in the first place.
The court held that due process, as well as the family law rule for contempt, only requires that the alleged contemnor be given “an opportunity to be heard.” That opportunity includes the right to appear at the evidentiary hearing and present any and all relevant defenses, including laches. By denying the Former Husband the right to even make his argument, the magistrate denied him his basic due process rights.
This distinction is vital for anyone litigating in Hillsborough County. While a strategic, written response to a motion is often good practice, this case confirms that a party is not barred from raising defenses at a contempt hearing just because they were not filed in writing beforehand.
What is the Laches Defense?
The Phanord case’s reversal was based on the right to present the laches defense, not on the merits of that defense. The Former Husband will now get a new hearing where he will have to prove his laches claim. Understanding this defense is crucial, as it is one of the few ways to combat a claim for decades-old support arrears.
“Laches” is an equitable defense. It is not a statute with a fixed deadline but rather a legal principle based on fairness. In plain terms, laches is a defense that says: “You waited an unreasonable and unexplained amount of time to assert your legal right, and your delay has now caused me so much harm that it is unfair (inequitable) for the court to enforce your right.”
To successfully prove a laches defense in a Tampa family law case, the defending party must prove two distinct elements:
1. Unreasonable, Unexplained Delay The party must first show that the person seeking the money (the payee) sat on their rights for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time. In Phanord, the Former Wife waited 30 years after the divorce and 20 years after the children were adults. This is, on its face, an extraordinarily long and likely unreasonable delay.
In many cases, however, a delay of just a few years might be considered perfectly reasonable, especially if the payee can explain it (e.g., “I did not file sooner because the payor was incarcerated,” or “I was raising the children and did not have the financial means to hire an attorney.”).
2. Prejudice to the Adverse Party This is the most critical element of the laches defense. Delay alone is not enough. The defending party must prove that the delay caused them specific harm or prejudice. This prejudice is what makes the enforcement of the old claim unfair.
In the context of child support arrears, this “prejudice” can take several forms, just as the Former Husband in Phanordalleged:
- Loss of Records: This is the most common form of prejudice. The defending party may claim, “I did make those payments, but I no longer have the canceled checks, bank statements, or receipts from 30 years ago to prove it. Banks do not keep records for that long. Your delay has destroyed my ability to present my evidence.”
- Faded Memories: After 10, 20, or 30 years, it is impossible to expect anyone to accurately recall specific dates, conversations, or cash payments. The delay makes it impossible for the defending party to challenge the payee’s testimony.
- Death of Witnesses: A key witness who could have verified payments or agreements between the parties may have passed away during the long delay.
- Detrimental Change in Position: The defending party may have, in reliance on the payee’s inaction, reasonably assumed the old debt was resolved or forgiven. Based on this assumption, they may have made major life decisions, such as taking a lower-paying job, retiring, or taking on new financial obligations, which they would not have done if they knew a massive, decades-old debt was still pending.
Proving laches is a very high, fact-specific burden. It is not a simple “do-it-yourself” argument. It requires a meticulous presentation of evidence to show not just the delay, but the actual harm it caused. A Tampa divorce lawyer is essential to build this complex defense.
Implications of Phanord for Tampa Family Law Cases
This appellate decision sends several clear messages to litigants and legal professionals in Tampa and across Florida.
1. Due Process is Not Optional The Phanord case is a powerful reminder that judicial efficiency can never come at the cost of due process. A party in a family law case, especially one facing contempt sanctions that could include a loss of liberty, has an absolute right to be fully heard on all relevant defenses. A court cannot use procedural shortcuts to block a party from presenting their case.
2. A Warning to Those Owed Support: Do Not Wait While this case was a victory for the Former Husband on procedural grounds, it serves as a major warning to any parent who is owed child support. Do not sit on your rights. Florida law is very favorable to collecting child support, but it is not infinitely patient. If you wait 20 or 30 years to file for enforcement, you are handing the other side a powerful and legitimate laches defense.
The best practice is to pursue enforcement of child support diligently. If you are owed money, you should consult with a Tampa divorce lawyer to understand your options for filing a motion for contempt, suspending the payor’s driver’s license, or garnishing their wages. Acting promptly ensures that evidence is fresh, records are available, and the laches defense never becomes a viable issue.
3. Laches vs. Statute of Limitations It is important not to confuse laches with a statute of limitations. A statute of limitations is a rigid, statutory deadline (e.g., “you must file a claim within X years”). Laches is a flexible, equitable doctrine with no set timeline. It is entirely dependent on the specific facts of the case, focusing on the “reasonableness” of the delay and the “prejudice” it caused. In Florida, the law is extremely clear that child support obligations do not just disappear and are not subject to a typical statute of limitations, which is why the equitable defense of laches becomes so important in these old-debt cases.
4. The Value of Experienced Legal Counsel The Phanord case perfectly illustrates the technical, high-stakes nature of family law litigation. The outcome of the case hinged entirely on a procedural rule that a non-lawyer would almost certainly not understand. The Former Husband’s Tampa divorce lawyer recognized the magistrate’s legal error, properly appealed it, and won his client a second chance to present his case.
Whether you are defending against a contempt motion with a complex defense like laches, or you are the party seeking to enforce an old order, navigating the procedural and evidentiary rules is critical. A single mistake, like the magistrate’s, can lead to a complete reversal on appeal.
Navigating the complexities of child support enforcement, contempt proceedings, and equitable defenses requires a deep understanding of Florida’s procedural rules and case law. The Phanord decision highlights the importance of due process and the right to be heard. If you are involved in a dispute over unpaid child support in the Tampa area, whether as the payor or the payee, it is vital to have experienced legal representation. Contact our office to schedule a consultation to discuss the specific facts of your case and your legal options.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is laches in a Florida child support case? Laches is an equitable defense. It argues that the parent owed support waited an unreasonably long time to file for enforcement, and that delay has caused the non-paying parent so much prejudice (like lost records) that it is now unfair to enforce the old debt.
Why was the contempt order reversed in Phanord v. Phanord? The order was reversed because the magistrate improperly denied the Former Husband his right to present his laches defense. The magistrate wrongly ruled that the defense was “waived” because it was not in a written “answer,” but a motion for contempt does not require a written answer.
Is a motion for contempt the same as a pleading in Florida? No. The Phanord case reaffirmed that a motion for contempt is not a “pleading.” A pleading (like a petition) requires a formal answer with affirmative defenses. A motion (like one for contempt) does not, and defenses can be raised at the hearing.
Can child support arrears be collected forever in Florida? While child support obligations are not subject to a typical statute of limitations and do not simply expire, a decades-long delay in enforcement can open the door to the equitable defense of laches, which can, in some cases, prevent their collection.
Do I need a Tampa divorce lawyer for a contempt hearing? It is highly recommended. These hearings are evidentiary proceedings that involve rules of evidence, burdens of proof, and complex legal defenses. As Phanord shows, understanding these procedures is critical to protecting your rights.