JOAN R. LEWIS, APPELLANT,
v.
FRED L. LEWIS, 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 order requiring mortgage payments to be deposited in the attorney's trust account and discontinuing the appellant's use of those funds for personal expenses pending appeal of an annulment judgment.
A trial court has authority to require mortgage payments be deposited in an attorney's trust account and to discontinue an appellant's use of those funds for personal expenses in order to preserve marital assets pending appeal.
[1] A trial court may require mortgage payments received by a party to be deposited in an attorney's trust account and may discontinue that party's use of such funds for pers…
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 intelligenceJoan Lewis received monthly mortgage payments and was using them for personal support expenses. After she remarried, the trial court ordered these pay…
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 Annulment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The appealed order is before us on expedited appeal. We find no error in the court’s requiring appellant to deposit the monthly payments received from the two mortgages into her attorney’s trust account in order to preserve the marital estate assets pending resolution of the appeal. Likewise, we find no error in the order directing the mortgagors to make such monthly payments directly to the attorney’s trust account rather than to appellant.
We also hold that the trial court has not been shown to have abused its discretion in discontinuing appellant’s use of these funds to meet her personal expenses for support. Appellant has remarried since the entry of the order allowing her to so use those monthly payments. The trial court has ample authority to issue orders necessary to preserve the marital assets pending the outcome of the. appeal from the final judgment of annulment. We conclude that even though the finding of contempt against appellant is inconsistent with the finding that she did not have available funds to make the payment required by the order of March 25, 1986, and is subject to being set aside, nevertheless the trial court has authority to preserve the marital assets pending appeal from the final judgment, which includes the power to discontinue distribution of mortgage payments to appellant for her sole personal use.
This decision is not intended to foreclose appellant from applying to the court below for release of marital funds allocated to her in the final judgment upon a showing of significant financial need during the pendency of the appeal.
AFFIRMED.
SMITH, SHIVERS and ZEHMER, JJ., concur.