MARGARET A. TAYLOR, APPELLANT,
v.
LARRY D. TAYLOR, 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 denial of the wife's contempt motion, holding that obligations in a marital property settlement cannot be enforced through contempt proceedings, and struck certain extraneous language from the order regarding mortgage payment obligations.
Obligations incurred by a party in a marital property settlement are not subject to enforcement through contempt proceedings.
[1] Obligations incurred by a party in a marital property settlement are not subject to enforcement through contempt proceedings.
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 marital dissolution case, the wife filed a motion for contempt against the husband regarding obligations under their marital property settlement,…
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 Motion For Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court’s denial of the wife’s motion for contempt is affirmed. Obligations incurred by a party in a marital property settlement are not subject to enforcement through contempt proceedings. See Finney v. Finney, 603 So. 2d 92 (Fla.5th DCA 1992); Hobbs v. Hobbs, 518 So. 2d 439 (Fla.1st DCA 1988).
We also strike as extraneous to the trial court’s ruling on the wife’s motion for contempt the final clause of the trial court’s order holding that “the Former Husband will not be required to pay the Second Mortgage in full at the sale but only to continue to pay the monthly payments in a timely manner” and the trial court’s findings relating to that clause. While the trial court is without jurisdiction to modify property rights after an adjudication of those rights has been made in a judgment of dissolution, Work v. Provine, 632 So. 2d 1119, 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994), our ruling is without prejudice to either party seeking, by appropriate petition, the trial court’s interpretation of the meaning of a provision in the marital settlement agreement. See, e.g., Salyers v. Good, 443 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983); Maclaren v. Maclaren, 616 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993).
AFFIRMED as MODIFIED.
WEBSTER, MICKLE and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
W.E. Bishop, Jr. v. Bishop, 667 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…The husband appeals that aspect of the order holding him in civil contempt. This court has held that “[ojbligations incurred by a party in a marital property settlement are not subject to enforcement through contempt proceedings.” Taylor v. Taylor, 653 So. 2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); cf. Hobbs v. Hobbs, 518 So. 2d 439 (Fla. [*247] 1st DCA 1988) (holding that a husband cannot be imprisoned for failure to pay a third party a joint debt incurred by the husband and wife). We note however that the trial jud…
-
Collins v. Milazzo, 670 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…t conclude that a violation has occurred, it is directed to determine what remedy would be most appropriate to enforce the agreement. Of course, because the dispute is over distribution of property, contempt is not available. E.g., Taylor v. Taylor, 653 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions. ERVIN, MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.…
-
Swain v. Swain, 783 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Work v. Provine, 632 So. 2d 1119 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)
- Hobbs v. Hobbs, 518 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Salyers v. Good, 443 So. 2d 152 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- In re The Marriage of Noel K. MacLaren v. MacLaren, 616 So. 2d 104 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993)
- Finney v. Finney, 603 So. 2d 92 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)