MARION M. MAYER, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT W. MAYER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A Florida appellate court reversed a trial court's modification of alimony payments, holding that a court cannot simultaneously find a husband in contempt for non-payment of alimony and then reduce his payment obligations, as this would reward his contumacious conduct and violate equitable principles.
A court cannot find a party in contempt for non-payment of alimony and simultaneously modify the judgment to reduce payment obligations, as these actions are incompatible. A party found in contempt has unclean hands and is not entitled to equitable relief such as modification.
[1] A court cannot simultaneously find a party in contempt for failing to comply with a prior order and grant that same party relief by modifying the terms of that prior orde…
[2] A party found in contempt of court for non-payment of obligations is considered to have unclean hands and is therefore not entitled to equitable relief.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We hold that the judicial actions of finding the husband in contempt for failure to make the required payments and simultaneously modifying the payment and insurance requirements of the prior judgment are incompatible.”
The court's central holding that contempt findings and downward modifications cannot coexist
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMarion and Robert Mayer were divorced in Illinois in 1959 under a decree requiring the husband to pay $350 per month permanent alimony and maintain li…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Establishment Of Foreign Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
DOWNEY, Chief Judge.
The parties to this appeal were divorced in Illinois in 1959. The final decree incorporated an agreement between the parties wherein, among other things, the husband agreed to pay the wife $350 per month permanent alimony and pay the premium on a life insurance policy naming the wife as beneficiary. The husband moved to Florida and in 1975 the wife filed suit to establish the Illinois decree as a Florida judgment and to recover arrearages through contempt proceedings or other equitable remedies. By way of an Answer, the husband sought modification of the payments required under the agreement and Illinois decree.
The trial court entered an order on April 21, 1976, establishing the Illinois decree as a Florida judgment; adjudicated and entered judgment for the arrearage of $6,825; found the husband’s circumstances had substantially changed but denied modification because he had not demonstrated the change was permanent; and directed the husband to continue to pay $350 per month alimony.
Sometime prior to August 12, 1977, the husband filed a further petition for modification which resulted in the judgment presently being reviewed. Therein the trial court found that the husband was “in contempt of this Court due to his failure to pay alimony to the wife, Marion M. Mayer, pursuant to this court’s prior orders, it appearing that he has been financially able to comply with said orders, however, the Court in its discretion chooses not to impose sanctions.” After finding the husband in contempt for non-payment the court, among other things, modified the judgment of April 21, 1976, by reducing the alimony payments to $25.00 per month and terminated the husband’s responsibility to maintain the mentioned life insurance policy for the wife’s benefit.
We hold that the judicial actions of finding the husband in contempt for failure to make the required payments and simultaneously modifying the payment and insurance requirements of the prior judgment are incompatible. It follows that, if the husband was in contempt for non-payment, he was guilty of having unclean hands and equity will afford him no relief. Blanton v. Blanton, 154 Fla. 750, 18 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1944); Martin v. Martin, 256 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Bock v. Bock, 336 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976); Feder v. Feder, 291 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974).
Accordingly, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment appealed from, dated January 6, 1978, are reversed.
REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART.
LETTS and MOORE, JJ., concur.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
PER CURIAM.
Appellant’s petition for rehearing is granted. Our opinion filed June 20, 1979, is modified so as to provide that the handwritten portion of Paragraph 6 of the Final Judgment of January 7, 1978, which states “after paragraph five has been complied with” is stricken from said judgment.
DOWNEY, C. J., and LETTS and MOORE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Blanton v. Oneida Langley Blanton, 154 Fla. 750 (Fla. 1944)
- Feder v. Feder, 291 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Martin v. Martin, 256 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)
- Bock v. Bock, 336 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)