KAREN HOLMES, APPELLANT,
v.
CHARLES DOUGLAS COOLMAN, 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 party cannot be held in civil contempt for violating a private agreement not incorporated into a court order.
Following a dissolution of marriage, the parties entered into an addendum to their property settlement agreement detailing visitation rights. The appe…
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 Visitation Rights cases and more on FLexlaw
MOORE, Judge.
The appellant was adjudged guilty of contempt and was sentenced to serve 60 days in the Palm Beach County Jail. Provisions for purging herself of the contempt were provided in the order. She appeals the adjudication of contempt. We reverse.
The marriage of the parties to this appeal was dissolved in 1975. Incorporated in the final judgment of dissolution is a property settlement agreement which awards custody of the two minor children of the parties to the appellee. It allows the appellant “liberal reasonable rights of visitation.” In 1979, the parties executed an addendum to the agreement delineating in more detail the manner in which the visitation rights were to be exercised. The record does not reflect that the addendum was ever presented to the court, nor was it ever incorporated in any court order. Yet, it is the addendum which the appellant allegedly violated, causing the adjudication of contempt. The issue before us is whether the appellant can be held in civil contempt for violating a private agreement. We hold that she cannot.
The purpose of punishment in civil contempt proceedings is to compel compliance with a court order for the benefit of the opposing party. See, In Re: Tierney, 328 So. 2d 40, 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). The punishment is conditioned upon the continued failure to comply with the court order. Here there was no court order; thus, there could have been no failure to comply.
Where no order which the alleged con-demnor has disobeyed appears in the record, an adjudication of contempt, and the sentence thereon, cannot stand. Gilman v. Altman, 300 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974). Accordingly, the order adjudging the appellant in contempt of court is reversed.
GLICKSTEIN and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Nastasi v. Thomas, 88 So. 3d 407 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)…te only when a court order has been violated. A settlement agreement must be incorporated into a court order approving it, and the order must also direct the parties to comply with it before contempt sanctions are appropriate. See Holmes v. Coolman, 401 So. 2d 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (explaining former wife could not be held in contempt for violation of an agreement not incorporated in any court order); Gilman v. Altman, 300 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974) (stating where no order directing execution of a deed a…
Authorities Cited
- In re Tierney, 328 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)
- Gilman v. Altman, 300 So. 2d 703 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)