MARTHA V. D'ANGELO, APPELLANT,
v.
JOSEPH V. D'ANGELO, 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.
A former wife appealed a trial court's denial of her contempt motion for the former husband's failure to pay temporary alimony. The appeals court reversed, finding that the final judgment retained jurisdiction to enforce the temporary relief order and did not merge it into the judgment.
The trial court erred in denying the contempt motion. The final judgment expressly required the husband to continue meeting the demands of the Temporary Relief Order and reserved jurisdiction to enforce the judgment's terms and conditions, therefore the court retained power to enforce the temporary support payments.
[1] A trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce a temporary relief order when the final judgment explicitly states that the husband is to continue meeting the demands of th…
[2] A trial court retains jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions of a final judgment when the judgment explicitly reserves jurisdiction for that purpose.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The Husband is to continue to meet the demands of the Temporary Relief Order until such time as all lump-sum alimony payments are made pursuant to this Judgment.”
Language from the Final Judgment showing that temporary relief obligations continued and were not merged
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe former husband was ordered to pay temporary alimony under a Temporary Relief Order. The trial court subsequently entered a Final Judgment that req…
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 Willful Disobedience cases and more on FLexlaw
WALDEN, Judge.
The former wife appeals from a post dissolution denial of her motion for contempt regarding the former husband’s failure to pay temporary alimony. We reverse and remand.
The trial court denied the motion for contempt on the grounds that A) the ar-rearages were not acknowledged in the Final Judgment, B) the lower Court did not reserve jurisdiction to enforce the Temporary Relief Order, and C) the Temporary Relief Order merged in the Final Judgment. We find that the trial court erred in these rulings insofar as the final judgment provides:
The Husband is to continue to meet the demands of the Temporary Relief Order until such time as all lump-sum alimony payments are made pursuant to this Judgment.
Further, the final judgment indicates that:
The Court reserves jurisdiction to enforce the terms and conditions of this Judgment.
Thus, the court did retain the power to enforce the payment of funds required by the temporary relief order. Inasmuch as the trial court ruled that it did not have jurisdiction and that the temporary relief order merged in the final judgment, the court failed to reach the merits of the former wife’s motion for contempt. We elect to remand for a full evidentiary hearing on the former wife’s motion for contempt with instructions to the court to fully adjudicate the issues regarding the husband’s failure to pay temporary support. Therein the trial court should make a factual determination of whether the husband was in arrears on his temporary support payments, whether he has the ability to pay those amounts and whether he has willfully disobeyed a court order. See, Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985.)
REVERSED and REMANDED.
DOWNEY and LETTS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Haritos v. Theodora Haritos, 193 So. 3d 1050 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…relief orders in effect ... shall continue until further order of this Court and are not extinguished by this [fjinal [j]udgment.” Therefore, the temporary support order continued and was not merged into the final judgment. See D’Angelo v. D’Angelo, 570 So. 2d 1094, 1094-95 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (holding that temporary relief order did not merge into final judgment where final judgment specifically stated that temporary relief order will continue and trial court reserved jurisdiction to enforce temporary relief…
Authorities Cited
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)