KATHERINE MCGINN, APPELLANT,
v.
RAYMOND J. MCGINN, 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.
Wife's appeal of divorce judgment interpretation was denied where the trial court correctly construed an ambiguous provision requiring her to convey property to the husband, making her contempt motion moot.
When a judgment provision is ambiguous, the trial court may resort to the record, including the property settlement agreement, to resolve the ambiguity.
[1] When a judgment provision is ambiguous, the trial court may resort to the record and the parties' property settlement agreement to resolve the ambiguity.
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a divorce action, the trial court interpreted an amended final judgment as requiring the wife to convey certain property to the husband. The wife a…
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 Motion For Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
In this divorce action, the wife appeals an order of the trial court which interpreted a provision of the amended final judgment of dissolution as requiring her to convey certain property to the husband and which denied the wife’s motion for contempt for the husband’s failure to convey that same property to her. As to the wife’s argument that the trial judge erred in construing the amended final judgment, we find that the contested portion of the judgment was ambiguous and that the judge correctly resorted to the record in the case to resolve that ambiguity. Boynton v. Canal Authority, 311 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). The record contained sufficient evidence, including the property settlement agreement stipulated to by the parties, to support the judge’s interpretation. The wife also argues that the trial judge erred in refusing to accept evidence before ruling on her motion for contempt for the husband’s failure to convey the disputed property to her. Because we find that the judge correctly construed the amended final judgment as requiring the wife to convey the property to the husband, we also find that the wife’s motion became moot and was properly denied without an evidentiary hearing.
We have carefully considered the briefs and the record, and we find no merit in appellant’s remaining contentions.
AFFIRMED.
HOBSON, A.C.J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Fla. Audubon Soc'y v. Nat Ratner, 497 So. 2d 672 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…ally, a judgment must be interpreted in accordance with the proceedings, orders, facts, and law of the case. Brandt v. Brandt, 138 Fla. 243, 189 So. 275 (1939); American Securities Co. v. Goldsberry, 69 Fla. 104, 67 So. 862 (1915); McGinn v. McGinn, 425 So. 2d 1202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); 32 Fla.Jur.2d Judgments & Decrees § 24 (1981). Both parties presented evidence on the effects limestone mining would have upon the District’s easement. Also, the trial court, after hearing argument, stated that all of the issues…
Authorities Cited
- Boynton v. The Canal Auth. of the State of Fla., 311 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)