HARRY SHANE, APPELLANT,
v.
SANDRA SHANE, 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 held that a party cannot unilaterally decide to stop making court-ordered payments, as these payments become vested rights that can only be altered by a court order.
The appellant was found in contempt for failing to comply with property settlement support provisions incorporated into a final judgment of dissolutio…
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 Court Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
We affirm the trial court’s order finding the appellant in contempt of court for failing to comply with the property settlement support provisions incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. As this court stated in Adams v. Adams, 423 So. 2d 596, 598 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982):
[I]t is clear that, regardless of the actual facts, the payments not only must be made as provided, but become vested property rights of which the recipient cannot constitutionally be deprived until and unless a motion for modification is filed and favorably acted upon.... These decisions reflect the rather stra-ightfoward notion that one who is required by court order to make specified payments may not cavalierly ignore the judgment, and, as it were, take the law into his own hands by making the determination that there is a legal reason to depart from the terms of the order (footnote omitted). Only the court can make such a ruling, and it may do so only upon the filing of an appropriate pleading and then only prospectively.
See Benson v. Benson, 369 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Riley v. Riley, 509 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)…84); Ball v. Ball, 440 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Schminkey v. Schminkey, 400 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). . Solomon v. Solomon, 149 Fla. 174, 5 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1941); English v. Galbreath, 462 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Shane v. Shane, 444 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984). . Ball v. Ball, 440 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Woods v. Butter, 418 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982); Schminkey v. Schminkey, 400 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Benson v. Benson, 369 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Burke v.…
-
Pollock v. T & M Invs., Inc., 455 So. 2d 573 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)
Authorities Cited
- Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So. 2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Benson v. Seymour Benson, 369 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)
- Adams v. Adams, 423 So. 2d 596 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)