SONIA KORDAK, FORMERLY SONIA L. WILLIAMS, APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD L. WILLIAMS, 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 motion for contempt alone does not provide a basis for modifying a final judgment of dissolution. The court reversed the modification of the final judgment.
Following a 1970 divorce, the husband filed a motion for contempt regarding child visitation, and the wife counter-motioned for contempt regarding chi…
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 Modification Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
The wife appeals an order denying her motion for contempt and modifying a prior final judgment of dissolution. We reverse in part because there was no basis in the pleadings for the modification.
The parties were divorced in 1970 by a judgment which incorporated a child custody and property settlement agreement. In late 1980, husband filed a motion to hold wife in contempt for her alleged non-compliance with the judgment’s child visitation provisions. In response, wife filed a counter motion for contempt asserting husband’s failure to comply with the child support provisions of the judgment. No other substantive pleadings were filed, and both contempt motions were heard on November 24, 1980. The resulting court order made no ruling on husband’s motion for contempt and denied the wife’s motion and her request for attorneys’ fees and arrearages. We affirm these limited rulings on contempt and the refusal to enforce the wife’s claim for arrearages. In addition, the order in question proceeded to modify the final judgment by striking a particular paragraph regarding child support and by accepting an oral modification of the final judgment which the parties were found to have previously entered into. The court found the oral modification to be legally binding and ordered the parties to comply with it in the future.
A mere motion for contempt does not form the basis for modification of a final judgment. See Sardinas v. Sardinas, 401 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA, 1981), and the numerous cases cited therein.
The order below is thus affirmed as to the rulings on contempt, arrearages, and attorneys’ fees, and reversed and vacated as to all other rulings.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART.
ANSTEAD, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., Retired, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Dugan v. Dugan, 498 So. 2d 989 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)…ht such a modification of the final judgment of dissolution. On the contrary, both filed motions seeking to enforce its terms. There was no basis for the lower court’s modification eliminating the option of sale to a third party. Kordak v. Williams, 404 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). We note, how [*992] ever, that the final judgment of dissolution contemplated one or the other of the options being exercised within three years, and that now more than six years have elapsed. The wife’s decision to either remai…
-
Catinella v. Catinella, 471 So. 2d 1362 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…master or upon the presentation to the trial court of additional testimony. Second, the trial court erred in modifying the husband’s other support obligations because the issue of modification was not raised by the parties. See Kordak v. Williams, 404 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Sardinas v. Sardinas, 401 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.…
-
State v. Castellanos, 644 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)…PER curiam:. Affirmed. Notarianni v. Notarianni, 622 So .2d 1144 (Fla. 2d DCA 1993); Wallace v. Wallace, 413 So. 2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); Kordak v. Williams, 404 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Elida Pauline Sardinas v. Sardinas, 401 So. 2d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)