1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN

2 AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, STATE OF FLORIDA

FAMILY LAW DIVISION
3

4
DANA HEIFERMAN, Case No.: 13-DR-006557
5 Plaintiff/Former Wife, DIVISION: D

6 vs.
TODD HEIFERMAN,
7
Defendant/Former Husband
8

9 FORMER HUSBAND’S MOTION FOR REHEARING AND/OR

MOTION TO VACATE
10

11 COMES NOW, Former Husband, TODD HEIFERMAN, pro se, and files this his
12 Motion for Rehearing and/or Motion to Vacate, A hearing was held on October 25, 2017 and I am requesting a re-
13 hearing pursuant to Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.530. This Motion for Rehearing is being filed within 15 days from the date of the
14 filing of the judgment or order.
15
• The controlling document in this matter is the May 20, 2013 Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage
16
(“Final Judgment”), which incorporated the parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement (Exhibit “A”) and the
17
Parenting Plan (Exhibit “B”).
18
• On March 12, 2017, this Court entered an Order of Indirect Criminal Contempt against Former Husband
19
(Exhibit “D”).
20
• On November 3, 2017, the Court entered an Order granting Former Wife Verified Motion for Indirect Civil
21
Contempt and Enforcement of Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage alleging that the Former
22
Husband failed to satisfy his child support and uncovered medical expenses. Also, in that same Order, this
23
Court entered an Order denying Former Husband’s Motion for Continuance (Exhibit “E”).
24
The reasons I am requesting a rehearing are:
25
(1) Since the hearing on Former Wife’s Verified Motion for Indirect Civil Contempt and
26
Enforcement of the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage and Denying Former Husband’s Motion for
27
Continuance, a new issue has come to light as well as several issues that the Court was not aware of, overlooked or
28

CASE NUMBER 13-DR-006557 PAGE – 1

 1 failed to consider. Courts have the discretion to reconsider an Order, Johnson v. Tampa Sports Authority, 442

2 F.Supp. 2006).

3 (2) The Court “..abuses its discretion if it overlooks a relevant factor that deserves weight”,

4 Sussman v. Salem, Saxon & Nelsen, P.A., 153 F.R.D. 689, 694 (M.D. Fla. 1994). Further in Sussman, Id., it was

5 held that clarifying evidence can be used if the Court made an obvious mistake. A rehearing motion provides the

6 Court an opportunity to entertain matters that it previously misapprehended, overlooked or failed to consider, and to,

7 thereby, correct any associated error, Gaffney v. Gaffney, 956 So. 2d 1217, 1221 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007); Carollo v.

8 Carollo, 920 So.2d 16, 19 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).

10 SIMULTANEOUS PROCEEDINGS – CIVIL VS. CRIMINAL CONTEMPT

11 (3) An Order was entered on March 12, 2017, adjudicating Former Husband of Indirect
12 Criminal Contempt of Court. Within said Order, the Court imposed monetary sanctions upon Former Husband. On
13 March 1, 2017, at the hearing related to the Indirect Criminal Contempt, Former Wife testified that:
14
“Respondent was in arrears in his child support obligation [off the top her head,
15
Former Wife testified on the stand that] …she could not recall an exact amount and
16
that he owed her Two Thousand Dollars and .00/100 Cents ($2,000.00) for the past due
17
uncovered medical and orthodontic expenses for minor children.”
18

19 (4) Part of the adjudication in the Indirect Criminal Contempt ruling was a monetary amount

20 that was for uncovered medical expenses, a civil matter. The Order held that:

21
“$2,000.00 shall be reimbursed to the Petitioner for the Respondent’s past due
22
contribution toward the minor childrens’ uncovered medical and orthodontic
23
expenses” (Exhibit “D”).
24

25 (5) The Judge who heard this matter, combined civil and criminal contempt into one

26 proceeding which should not be tried together simultaneously because of the significant differences in the respective

27 burdens of proof and procedural rights afforded to the person accused of contempt. When there has been a

28 procedural flaw in the contempt process, it is proper to reverse the judgment of contempt. In this matter the Court

CASE NUMBER 13-DR-006557 PAGE – 2

 1 combined the punitive nature of criminal contempt with the remedial nature of civil contempt by including Former

2 Husband’s child support arrears for uncovered medical expenses in the amount of $2,000.00 in the hearing and the

3 final Order. The Indirect Criminal Contempt hearing was not related in any way to uncovered medical expenses and

4 that matter belonged in a separate forum.

5 (6) To this date, Former Wife has not produced any documentation at all supporting her

6 claims for uncovered medical expenses other than self-generated charts of her claims. Thus, Former Wife’s

7 testimony at the indirect criminal contempt hearing is unverified with possible perjury. As her charts have been

8 unsupported, so was her testimony during the indirect criminal contempt hearing. Former Husband has requested

9 the supporting documentation in the forms of bills for counseling, medical and orthodontic care, Explanations of
10 Benefits and proof of payment on numerous occasions with no response from Former Wife. Attached is an email
11 between Former Wife and Former Husband dated May 16, 2016 requesting that medical and orthodontic be
12 produced (Exhibit “I”). Also, attached is an email message between Former Husband’s prior attorney, Art Fulmer,
13 Esq., and attorney for Former Wife, Ms. Probasco dated April 13, 2017 requesting after Former Wife’s unfounded
14 testimony at the Indirect Criminal hearing of $2,000.00 outstanding in uncovered medical expenses (Exhibit “F”).
15 (7) Per the Department of Justice’s Criminal Resource Manual, “[w]hen a contempt action is
16
not clearly specified as criminal vs. civil and a single order is entered granting both punitive and remedial relief, the
17
criminal feature of the order is dominant and fixes its character for purposes of review.” In the Florida Supreme case
18
of Melvin Piedmont Nursery v. E.I. Dupont De Nemours & Company, Inc, citing Kyle v. Kyle, 139 So.2d 885,when
19
there is a dueling in a case, here two Motions for Contempt each encompassing an aspect of the other,
20
“conflict must be such that if the later decision and earlier decision were rendered by the same
21
Court the former would have the effect of overruling the later.”
22
(8) In the current matter, there has already been adjudication against Former Husband in the
23
amount for $2,000.00 for uncovered medical expenses, making Former Wife whole. Later, the General Magistrate in
24
this matter made another ruling at the Indirect Civil Contempt hearing of $2,421.94. Of that amount, $2,000.00 has
25
already been allocated with the entry of the Indirect Criminal Contempt. It appears that Former Wife is “double
26
dipping” to accrue additional funds. According to the above stated law, judgment in the Indirect Criminal
27
Contempt, the initial contempt amount of $2,000.00, is dominant to the Indirect Civil Contempt Order’s ruling.
28

CASE NUMBER 13-DR-006557 PAGE – 3

 1 Thus, Former Husband should not be taxed an additional $2,000.00 from the Indirect Civil Contempt Order as that

2 amount has already been awarded to Former Wife and adjudged against Former Husband. Former Husband should

3 only be assessed for the overage of $421.94.

5 DISREGARD FOR F.S. SECTION 61.30 (17) – RETROACTIVE CHILD SUPPORT

6 (9) At the hearing, Former Wife entered into evidence another self-serving

7 chart indicating what the monies she should have received for child support back to June 1, 2013

8 and up through May 30, 2017 (Exhibit “G”) with a total $9,559.83. As well, the chart indicates

9 the monies paid by Former Husband in lower amounts per the parties’ unofficial verbal agreement.
10 With the admission of that document into evidence, Former Wife disregarded
11 F.S. Section 61.30 (17) which holds that:
12
“In an initial determination of child support, whether in a paternity action, or petition
13
for support during the marriage, the Court has discretion to award child support retroactive to
14
the date when the parents did not reside together in the same household with child, not to
15
exceed a period of 24 months preceding the filing of the petition, regardless of whether the
16
date precedes the filing of the petition”.
17

18 (10) The chart submitted by Former Wife for retroactive child support does not follow the law

19 set out by F.S. Section 61.30 (17) in that the chart requests payment back to June 2013, outside of the 24 month

20 statutory limit. According to F.S. Section Former Wife is not eligible for payments back to June 1, 2013. Former

21 Wife’s Verified Motion for Indirect Civil Contempt and Enforcement of Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage

22 was filed June 17, 2017. In that scenario, Former Wife is only entitled to child support payments back to June 17,

23 2015. Therefore, any claims for child support arrear payments prior to June 17, 2015 are null and void.
24 (11) The General Magistrate incorrectly ordered Former Husband to pay the TOTAL child
25 support back to June 1, 2013 in the amount of $9,559.83 with an assessment of recent payments in 2017 of $636.20
26 lowering the amount due to $8,923.63.
27 (12) Based on the tenets held in F.S. Section 61.30 (17) Former Wife is not legally able to
28 collect monies for the period of June 1, 2013 through June 17, 2015. Former Wife is not eligible for payment in the

CASE NUMBER 13-DR-006557 PAGE – 4

 1 amount of $2,386.00 (the total amount of child support for that period was $11,448.00 minus the amount paid by

2 Former Husband of $9,062.00). Thus, the amount Former Husband should be assessed for back child support in the

3 amount of $6,537.63 instead of $8,923.20 as assed in the Order.

5 UNSUPPORTED EVIDENCE AND FALSE ALLEGATIONS BY FORMER WIFE

6 (13) At the hearing Former Wife produced a self-generated document setting forth her accrual

7 of unreimbursed medical expenses (Exhibit “H”) which Former Husband had never received prior to the hearing.

8 The self-generated document again had no supporting documents attached nor did it refer to any tangible evidence

9 of medical bills or proof of payment as required for reimbursement. Former Wife has ignored Former Husband’s

10 numerous requests for production of medical bills and proof payment regarding the uncovered medical expense

11 arrears.

12 (14) Former Wife’s refusal to provide the supporting documents, has led to the Court record

13 being insufficient in order for the Court to determine the arrears assessed to Former Husband. Thus there is no way

14 for the Magistrate or Former Husband to determine the exact amount paid, incurred or owed. Due to Former Wife’s

15 failure to provide documents, her arrearage accrual as to uncovered medical expenses should preclude any

16 judgement in her favor. Additionally, any Contempt against Former Husband is not valid because without the

17 documentation which the Former Wife has failed to produce, as it was impossible for Former Husband to perform

18 his obligation. If Former Husband did not receive the bills to pay, he cannot pay or even know he was in arrears.

19 Further if there are not bills presented for payment, Former Husband cannot be in willful violation of not paying, he

20 did not know, so there Former Husband is not in Contempt by Definition.

21 (15) Additionally, the Former Wife made unsubstantiated allegations against Former Husband

22 which led to the Court’s incorrectly sanctioning Former Husband. The holdings in paragraph 15 of this Court’s

23 Order of Indirect Civil Contempt, Former Wife put forth that:

24 “[d]uring this period of time, the Former Husband purchased a home with a $5,000 down

25 payment, financed the purchase of furniture for the home with a month payment amount of $75.00,

26 and travelled with the minor children on a cruise costing at least $1,000.00. As such, the Former
27 Husband is in willful contempt Court”.
28

CASE NUMBER 13-DR-006557 PAGE – 5

 1 (16) The Former Wife’s assertions set forth in paragraph 15 are false and meant to defame

2 Former Husband’s character before this Court. Former Wife did not investigate her allegations prior to asserting

3 them. The $5,000.00 Former Wife points to were not the Former Husband’s funds. In fact, the Former Husband

4 took out a personal loan to help cover the closing costs/moving costs for the new home (Prosper Loan-Exhibit “Q”),

5 Former Wife was always involved with the these plans and never once mentioned that she was owed money or back

6 pay, in fact supported the move based on the wellbeing of the children. Former Husband financed the furniture for

7 the children because they had no beds, just mattresses on the floor and no place to put clothes. In fact Former Wife

8 was involved with providing ideas and in fact provided contact information from personal friends of hers that were

9 selling bedroom furniture, however Former Husband did not have the cash so he had to finance. Again, Former
10 Wife’s silence as to any monies owed, precluded Former Husband from knowing he was not meeting his
11 obligations, especially where medical expenses are concerned.
12 (17) Further, while Former Wife is asserting “ability to pay” allegations, at the time that she is
13 referring to, Former Wife had an agreement with Former Husband wherein she agreed to lower child support
14 payments. Former Wife now denies those claims and comes to the Court making allegations with unclean hands.
15 Former Husband’s decisions were NOT made in willful violation of his child support obligations.
16
(18) Former Wife then asserts in paragraph 18 of the Order that; (Exhibit “E”)
17
“[t]he Former Husband has the ability to comply with the purge in that he testified that his
18
current bank balance is $1,300.00, he has 401(K) with a balance of $2,000.00 and he shall receive
19
approximately $1,300.00 net from his employer on Friday, October 27, 2017.”
20
(19) Again, Former Wife made assertions without checking her facts. The $1,300.00 that was
21
left in Former Husband’s bank account after he paid all his bills, leaving him with a zero balance and an inability to
22
even purchase food, the 401 (k) was already withdrawn and loan taken against it to pay for monthly bills.
23
(20) Further, the $5,000.00, $75.00 and $1,000.00 amounts that Former Wife refers to as
24
proving that Former Husband was willful in his actions, were amounts from two (2) years ago. At that time, Former
25
Husband was in a much different financial position than currently. At this time, Former Husband has NO ability to
26
pay currently, all of his monies have been paid out for lawyers, court fees, attorney fees and other costs related to
27
Former Wife’s attorney’s overly aggressive litigation tactics.
28

CASE NUMBER 13-DR-006557 PAGE – 6

 1 (21) It was the duty of the Magistrate to ensure that proper evidence was presented and pre-

2 reviewed by Former Husband to verify and determine the exact amount in arrears. If the proper supporting evidence

3 was not before the Magistrate, the Magistrate had the obligation to request the supporting documentation in order to

4 properly determine the correct amount of uncovered medical expenses due. This did not occur in this matter.

6 FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY PURGE

7 (22) Per Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 12.615, a detailed procedure must be followed

8 before civil contempt for failure to pay child support can be imposed. Former Husband’s, due process rights were

9 violated due to the format and conduct of the legal proceeding and the laws/rules are established to protect the rights
10 of individuals, including the right to a fair hearing.
11 (23) The presumption of ability to pay and purge contempt includes finding of present ability
12 to pay. The Court improperly assessed Former Husband’s ability to pay the purge. The over aggressive litigation by
13 Former Wife has caused Former Husband to suffer major financial setbacks to the point that at times Former
14 Husband is unable to even buy food. In Turner v. Johnson, 564 U.S.431 (2001), 131 S. Ct. 2507, “a purge amount
15 that the noncustodial parent is ordered to pay in order to avoid incarceration should take into consideration the actual
16
earnings and income as well as the subsistence needs of the noncustodial parent”. Former Husband barely has the
17
ability to even meet his subsistence needs.
18
(24) At the hearing, Former Husband intended to provide evidence supporting his inability to
19
pay, however, the Magistrate dismissed even assessing Former Husband’s financial documents. Had the Magistrate
20
reviewed Former Husband’s evidence, he would have found that the Former Husband has NO ability to pay the fines
21
imposed for attorney fees and the unsupported medical expenses, as well as the retroactive child support. Turner v.
22
Johnson, 564 U.S. 431 (2001), 131 S. Ct. 2507, held that “….purge amounts should be based upon a written
23
evidentiary finding that the noncustodial parent has the actual mean to pay the amount from his or her current
24
income or assets”. Former Husband contends that he was unable to present any evidentiary evidence at the hearing
25
showing that his current financial situation causes his inability to pay. Further, unsubstantiated, unverified and
26
unsupported documents entered by Former Wife assisted in the Court’s decision to charge Former Husband with
27
contempt.
28

CASE NUMBER 13-DR-006557 PAGE – 7

 1 (25) In the case of Hyle, it was held that the Court abused its discretion in imposing a purge

2 amount for civil contempt which Hyle did not have the ability to pay. In Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2nd 1274 Fla.

3 1985, it was held that the evidence in the civil contempt proceeding failed to show present ability to purge. Further,

4 in Faircloth, 339 So.2d 502, it was held that in order to have a written evidentiary finding that the noncustodial

5 parent has the actual means to pay the amount from his or her current income or assets:

6
“….judge must make a finding that 1) the contemnor presently has the ability to
7
comply with the order and willfully refuses to do so or 2) that the contemnor previously had
8
the ability to comply but divested himself of that ability through his fault designed to frustrate
9
the intent and purpose of the order”.
10

11 (25) The law related to conducting a proper purge, holds that if the Court finds willful

12 violation, there must be a separate, affirmative finding to the present ability to pay the purge amount and the Court

13 must specifically identify the source of the funds available to pay the purge amount. A finding of willful violation

14 must hold that there is an ability to comply with the Court Order and there was a deliberate and intentional failure to

15 do so. However, Former Husband has consistently made a good faith effort to make his payments, however, he has

16 insufficient means presently to defray the expenses of this suit, including the two contempt’s that have been entered

17 against him, attorney fees for Former Wife’s lawyer and previous attorney fees for his defense. However, at the

18 hearing in this matter, Former Husband was not afforded the opportunity to present his exhibits evidencing his

19 inability to pay. Had the Magistrate allowed Former Husband to present his supportive evidence it would have been

20 clear that Former Husband has NO ability to pay the amount imposed and caused by this over aggressive lawsuit.

21 (26) Former Husband’s financial position has deteriorated due to Former Wife’s filing of this

22 matter and he is no longer in a financial position to have the ability to pay. Former Husband is NOT trying to

23 willfully violate this Court’s holding but he does NOT have the ability to pay. The following are Former Husband’s

24 financial documents evidencing his inability of pay:

25 Exhibit “L” - Caliber Home Loans (home mortgage) $1,223.15 – monthly payment
26 Exhibit “M” - Vehicle loan $328.00 – monthly payment
27 Exhibit “N” - Vehicle insurance $88.00 – monthly payment
28 Exhibit “O” - Synchrony Bank (loan for failed air condition) $277.00 – monthly payment

CASE NUMBER 13-DR-006557 PAGE – 8

 1 Exhibit “P” - Synchrony Bank (loan for childrens’ furniture) $42.00 – monthly payment

2 Exhibit “Q” - Prosper personal loan – down payment of house $540.00 – monthly payment

3 Exhibit “R” - Marcus installment loan taken out for attorney fees $312.00 - monthly payment

4 Exhibit “S” - Equifax credit report showing Former Husband’s credit score has fallen from 640 in

5 5/15/17 to 565. Prior to Former Wife filing this matter, his credit score was 780. This is due to all the loans and

6 credit cards Former Husband has attempted to apply for in order come up with funds to pay in this matter. He has

7 been denied for each and every credit card and loan he applied for attempting to pay.

9 UNSUPPORTED CLAIM FOR UNREIMBURSED MEDICAL EXPENSES BY PEITIONER

10 (27) In paragraphs 22 and 23 of the Order of Indirect Civil Contempt, address Former Wife’s
11 2016 and 2017 claims for Uncovered Health Care Expenses (Exhibit “E”). Again, these self-generated documents
12 had no supporting documentation attached nor did it refer to any tangible evidence of medical bills or proof payment
13 as required for reimbursement.
14 (28) Former Wife has repeatedly ignored Former Husband’s numerous requests for production
15 of any and all uncovered medical and orthopedic bills, Explanation of Benefits and proof payment.
16

17
IN FLORIDA STATUTE 409.25635(B) REGARDING DETERMINING THE COLLECTION OF UNCOVERED
18
MEDICAL EXPENSES INDICATES THAT THE PETITIONER, IN ORDER EXPECT REPAYMENT, MUST PRESENT A
19
WRITTEN DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY MUST PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING:

20
Non-covered medical expenses have been incurred on behalf of the dependent Child whom the
21
Respondent has been ordered to support.
22
The oblige has paid for uncovered medical expenses that have been incurred on behalf of the
23
child.
24
The amount paid by the oblige for uncovered medical expenses and the amount the obligor
25
allegedly owes to the oblige. In addition, (c) The oblige provides documentation in support of the
26
written declaration.
27

28

CASE NUMBER 13-DR-006557 PAGE – 9

 1 (29) Attached is an email between Former Wife and Former Husband dated May 16, 2016

2 requesting that medical and orthodontic be produced (Exhibit “I”). Former Husband also made numerous other

3 requests for the bills for the childrens’ medical and orthodontic charges. Also, attached is an email message between

4 Former Husband’s prior attorney, Art Fulmer, Esq., and attorney for Former Wife, Ms. Probasco dated April 13,

5 2017, also in the Response line 10, (Exhibit “F”) “Former wife has failed to comply with the proof of payment

6 notice requirement pursuant to paragraph N of the final Judgement (Exhibit “A”). All throughout the course of

7 attempting to collect monies from Former Husband, Former Wife has willfully and maliciously not produced the

8 documentation required to be reimbursed. Self-generated charts and a recounting of bills typed by Former Wife is

9 not authentic documentation in order to collect payment.

10 Again, any Contempt against Former Husband is not valid because without the documentation
11 Former Wife has failed to produce, as it was not possible for Former Husband to perform his
12 obligation. If Former Husband did not receive the bills to pay, he cannot pay or even know he was
13 in arrears. Further if there are no bills presented for payment, Former Husband cannot be in
14 willful violation of not paying, he did not know, so there Former Husband is not in Contempt by
15 Definition.
16

17
IMPROPER DENIAL OF FORMER HUSBAND’S MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
18
(30) At the hearing Former Husband argued that Former Wife’s Verified Motion for Indirect
19
Civil Contempt and Enforcement of Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage and Former Husband’s Motion for
20
Continuance should not be heard as the Parenting Plan held that mediation was to occur prior to pursuing any
21
matters with the Court. The Magistrate asked to see the Parenting Plan, however, Former Husband did not have the
22
Plan readily available. Thus, the Magistrate denied Former Husband’s Motion for Continuance.
23
T HE P ARENTING P LAN WAS FILED WITH THE COURT AND IS READILY AVAILABLE TO THE
24
PARTIES, J UDGES AND M AGISTRATES AT ANY TIME FOR REFERENCE.
25
A P ARENTING P LAN IS CONSIDERED A LEGAL DOCUMENT, A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT,
26
BETWEEN THE PARTIES SETTING FORTH THE TERMS OF THE PARTIES ’ CHILD CUSTODY
27

28

CASE NUMBER 13-DR-006557 PAGE – 10

 1 AGREEMENT. T HE P ARENTING P LAN IS THE DOCUMENT THAT GOVERNS THE CUSTODIAL

2 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARENTS.

3 T HE P ARENTING P LAN IS A LEGALLY BINDING C OURT ORDER OR “DECREE”, DICTATING THE

4 PARENTS ’ RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE AGREEMENT. IN THIS MATTER, THE

5 P ARENTING P LAN (E XHIBIT “B’) DICTATES THAT:

6
“Parents shall attempt to cooperatively resolve any disputes which may arise over
7
the terms of the Parenting Plan. The parents may wish to use mediation or other dispute
8
resolution methods and assistance, such as Parenting Coordinators and Parenting
9
Counselors, BEFORE FILING A COURT ACTION”.
10

11 (31) In this matter there was no attempt Former Wife to pursue dispute resolution PRIOR to

12 filing a court action. Further, per Administrative Order S-2009-107, as related to MANDATORY Post- Judgment

13 Mediation, “whenever a post-judgment family law case is initiated, as a PREREQUISITE to scheduling a hearing

14 before the presiding Judge or general magistrate, the parties WILL submit such issues to mediation.” It also

15 declares that such post-judgment matters are hereby AUTOMATICALLY referred to mediation without further

16 order of the Court. The party initiating the post-judgment action will have the responsibility of initiating the

17 mandatory mediation.

18 (32) Former Wife made NO attempt whatsoever to resolve this dispute via mediation prior

19 filing this post-judgment action. Former Wife blatantly disregarded this rule and proceeded to a hearing despite the

20 mandatory laws requiring same.

21 (33) Additionally, due to denial of Former Husband’s Motion for Continuance, Former

22 Husband has incurred further damages in the form of additional attorney fees and emotional distress. Further, since

23 Former Husband’s attorney had recently withdrawn, Former Husband did not have an opportunity to consult with

24 Legal Aid and other free legal services within the area.
25

26 WHEREFORE, Former Husband requests that this Court grant his Motion for Rehearing on Former
27 Wife’s Verified Motion for Indirect Civil Contempt and Enforcement of Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage
28

CASE NUMBER 13-DR-006557 PAGE – 11

 1 and Denying Former Husband’s Motion for Continuance for the reasons as stated above. Former Husband further

2 requests as follows:

3 That the uncovered medical expenses contempt amount be reduced from $2,421.94 to $421.94 as

4 Former Wife has already been granted the $2,000.00 via the Order of Indirect Criminal Contempt.

5 That Former Wife’s retroactive child support amount awarded be reduced from $8,923.20 to

6 $6,537.63 as retroactive child support is only eligible for 24 months prior to the date post-

7 judgment petition is file.

8 Former Husband requests that the attorney fees for Former Wife’s attorney $1,230.00 due to the

9 Former Wife’s failure to produce documents and for setting forth false statements which have led
10 Former Husband being seen in a false light by this Court and which led to this Court adjudging
11 that Former Husband’s non-payment has been willful and also to make Former Husband whole
12 from the damages incurred by Former Wife’s untruthful statements.
13 Former Husband pleads for the opportunity of being able to present his evidence and arguments in
14 a formal and complete purge as Former Husband DOES NOT have the ability to pay the purge
15 that has been adjudicated against him, Former Husband was forced to open another credit card to
16
pay the purge, it is here by requested that former wife reimburse the $1,300.00 purge that was paid
17
on 11/16/2017.
18
(34) Due to this Court’s improperly denying Former Husband’s Motion for Continuance,
19
Former Husband requests that this Court recant its Order on Former Wife’s Verified Motion for Indirect Civil
20
Contempt and Enforcement of Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage and Denying Former Husband’s Motion
21
for Continuance as had Former Husband had the opportunity to confer with Legal Aid and other free legal services,
22
he would had proper advice from a lawyer. Additionally, the mediation clause set forth in the Parenting Plan as well
23
as Florida law holdings in family matters was ignored by this Court.
24
Former Husband prays that this Court grant any other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
25

26
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
27

28

CASE NUMBER 13-DR-006557 PAGE – 12

 1

5
I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has
6
been furnished to Former Wife Attorney, Eliane Probasco, Esq., via e-service only, filed electronically with
7
the Clerk of Court through the Florida Courts eFiling Portal per Rule 2.526(b), Fla.R.Jud.Admin.
8
ellie@tampafamilylegal.com; eservice@tampafamilylegal.com, this 19th day of November, 2017.
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CASE NUMBER 13-DR-006557 PAGE – 13