ALLAN D. REEDER, APPELLANT,
v.
KATHLEEN A. REEDER, 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.
Former husband's appeal of denial of contempt motion against former wife for refusing to refinance mortgage is affirmed, as the dissolution judgment required wife to be responsible for mortgage payments but did not require refinancing.
A dissolution judgment requiring the wife to be responsible for mortgage payments on the marital domicile does not obligate her to refinance the mortgage to remove the husband's liability.
[1] A judgment of dissolution requiring one spouse to be responsible for mortgage payments does not, by its terms, require that spouse to refinance the mortgage to remove the…
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 dissolution of marriage, the wife received the marital domicile as lump sum alimony with responsibility for all maintenance, mortgage payments, t…
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
DOWNEY, Judge.
This is a timely appeal from an order denying the appellant, former husband’s, motion for contempt and sanctions against appellee, his former wife.
The amended final judgment of dissolution of marriage, among other things, awarded the marital domicile to the wife as lump sum alimony, with the requirement that “The Wife/Petitioner shall be responsible for all maintenance, mortgage payments, taxes, insurance, upkeep ... on said marital residence_” When the wife refused the husband’s requests to have his liability on the mortgage terminated so that he could use his V.A. benefits, presently pledged as security for said mortgage, as security for a new loan to obtain housing for himself and children, the husband filed the present motion.
While no transcript of the hearing on his motion has been provided, the husband’s brief states that, in denying the motion, the trial court stated that “The order said she’s to be responsible for the mortgage. Didn’t say she would have to refinance.”
No reversible error has been demonstrated by appellant, so the order appealed from must be, and is, affirmed. However, we do so without prejudice to appellant’s right to seek modification of the final judgment if he be so advised.
GLICKSTEIN and WARNER, JJ., concur.