ANAHID TEODORESCU, APPELLANT,
v.
DUMITRU-DAN TEODORESCU, 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.
The court affirmed the trial court's finding of contempt and its stay order, construing the stay to apply only to proceedings for the appellant's benefit.
The former wife appealed a post-judgment contempt finding related to visitation provisions of a dissolution decree established in Florida. She also ap…
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 Stay Of Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appellant, former wife, appeals an order of the circuit court finding her in post-judgment contempt of the visitation provisions of a dissolution of marriage decree which had been initially entered in Michigan and by order of January 12, 1982, had been established by the circuit court as a Florida decree. The appellant also contends that the circuit court erred in entering its order of August 25,1982, staying all proceedings in the action until the former wife purges herself of contempt which would be, in effect, July 1, 1983, the next date on which the wife is to provide visitation of the children to the husband. We affirm the court’s finding of contempt.
We also affirm the stay order which we conclude was intended only to stay those proceedings which were filed by the appellant prior to the contempt order and which were for the exclusive benefit of appellant. We construe the order as not precluding appellant from instituting and pursuing proceedings to enforce the provisions of the dissolution decree which are for the benefit of the parties’ children.
Upon examination of the record we find appellant’s remaining contentions to be without merit. AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT HEREWITH.
DANAHY, A.C.J., and SCHOONOVER and LEHAN, JJ., concur.