LOUISE BRANDT, APPELLANT,
v.
EUGENE H. BRANDT, 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 the contempt order was properly entered, but the modification of lump sum alimony was an impermissible modification and improperly based on judicial notice of another court's order.
Appellant was found in contempt of court for failing to comply with a prior order. The trial court also modified a lump sum alimony award.…
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 Purge Provision cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
This is a consolidated appeal from an order adjudging appellant in contempt of court and modification of lump sum alimony. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
Our review of the record reveals that the trial court in its June 17, 1988, order offered two alternative purge provisions to appellant for her to avoid incarceration. Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985). First, she could return the property to appellee or she could replace the property at her own expense. Appellant, therefore, possessed the keys to her cell. Moreover, appellant was obligated to obey the trial court’s order until it was vacated or modified by trial court or reversed on appeal. Joannou v. Corsini, 543 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). Thus, we affirm the trial court’s order of contempt and commitment dated June 17, 1988.
On the other hand, we find the trial court’s order dated September 12, 1988 must be reversed on two grounds. We find that the order constituted an impermissible modification of lump sum alimony. Urbanek v. Urbanek, 484 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), cause dismissed, 491 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1986). In addition, the trial court erred in taking judicial notice of another court’s restraining order without having the order brought into the record. Pan American Stone Co., Inc. v. Meister, 527 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988). We are sympathetic with the trial court’s apparent frustration in obtaining the former wife’s compliance with prior court orders. However, he must fashion some form of relief other than by an impermissible modification of the meager lump-sum award afforded the wife. (It is important to note that neither party appealed the final judgment of dissolution.) Appellant’s other points raised on appeal are without merit.
AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART.
GUNTHER and GARRETT, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taverna v. Bank OF Am., 162 So. 3d 1042 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015)…bsence of record evidence of those facts, especially under the circumstances where the trial court rejected Taverna’s objections to the representations and did not afford Taverna the opportunity to present evidence to the contrary. Brandt v. Brandt, 561 So. 2d 1353 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990); Pan American Stone Co. v. L.A. Meister, 527 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988); Rodriguez v. Philip, 413 So. 2d 441 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). We conclude, under the circumstances here, that Taverna was unduly prejudiced by the unsubstant…
Authorities Cited
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)
- Joannou v. Corsini, 543 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- August Urbanek v. Urbanek, 484 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)
- PAN Am. Stone Co., Inc. v. L.A. Meister, 527 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)