WILLIAM MCMULLAN, APPELLANT,
v.
DEBORAH MCMULLAN, 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.
William McMullan appeals a contempt finding for failure to pay over $7,000 in court-ordered child support and alimony. The Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the contempt judgment, holding that trial courts have jurisdiction to enforce support obligations through contempt proceedings.
The trial court properly held William in contempt for non-compliance with court-ordered support payments. Courts that enter dissolution judgments maintain continuing jurisdiction to enforce those judgments through contempt proceedings, and the trial court did not err in reserving jurisdiction for enforcement purposes.
[1] Appellate review of factual determinations made by a trial court is precluded when the appellant fails to provide a transcript of the proceedings or a stipulated statemen…
[2] A court that enters a judgment of dissolution retains continuing jurisdiction to enforce that judgment.
Previewing 2 of 3 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 court which enters a judgment of dissolution maintains continuing jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the judgment”
Establishes the trial court's authority to enforce the dissolution judgment and reserve jurisdiction for that purpose.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam and Deborah McMullan were married in February 1988 and had one son. In July 1998, the trial court entered a final dissolution judgment awardin…
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 Rehabilitative Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
ANTOON, C.J.
William McMullan appeals the trial court’s order declaring him to be in contempt for his failure to comply with the support obligations imposed in the court’s final dissolution judgment. We affirm.1
In July 1998, the trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution which dissolved the marriage between William and Deborah McMullan. The parties had been married since February 1988, and one son was born during the marriage. In the final dissolution judgment, Ms. McMullan was awarded twenty-four months of rehabilitative alimony for purposes of support and primary residential custody of the child. Mr. McMullan was ordered to pay monthly child support, provide health insurance for the child, and obtain life insurance for the benefit of the child.
Three months after the dissolution order was entered, Ms. McMullan filed a motion for contempt alleging that Mr. McMullan had failed to pay in excess of $7,000 in court-ordered support. The trial court apparently conducted a hearing on this motion; however, a transcript of this hearing has not been provided to this court. Upon review of the evidence submitted, the trial court adjudicated Mr. McMullan to be in contempt. This appeal timely followed.
Mr. McMullan raises four claims of error regarding the trial court’s contempt ruling. Two of these claims relate to factual determinations made by the court. However, since Mr. McMullan has failed to provide this court with a transcript of the proceedings below or a stipulated statement of the facts pursuant to rule 9.200(b)(4) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure, these issues are not sub ject to appellate review. See Calicchio v. Calicchio, 693 So. 2d 1124, 1125 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997).
Mr. McMullan also claims that the trial court erred in sua sponte amending the final dissolution judgment to add a provision reserving jurisdiction to enforce the dissolution judgment. This claim of error is completely devoid of merit since it is well established that the court which enters a judgment of dissolution maintains continuing jurisdiction for the purpose of enforcing the judgment. See Bailey v. Malone, 389 So. 2d 348, 349 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980).
Finally, Mr. McMullan maintains that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hold him in contempt for his noncompliance with the court ordered support payments. This argument is also devoid of merit. Here, the wife was awarded lump sum alimony for purposes of support, not for purposes of property distribution. Trial courts possess jurisdiction to enforce by contempt court ordered support payments. See Veiga v. State, 561 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990).
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP, and GRIFFIN, JJ„ concur. . Jurisdiction is proper pursuant to rule 9.130(a)(4) of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Deuel v. Deuel, 814 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. See McMullan v. McMullan, 761 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Nicholason v. Bryant, 468 So. 2d 311 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). COBB, SHARP, W., and PALMER, JJ., concur.…
-
Juliette A. Holler v. Evelio de Hoyos, 935 So. 2d 78 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006)…or a substitute. Thus, we have no recourse but to affirm. See Pearce v. Pearce, 773 So. 2d 1286 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (absent a transcript or stipulation of facts, the record lacks a basis to reverse the trial court’s decision); McMullan v. McMullan, 761 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000) (claims relating to factual determinations made by the trial court were not subject to appellate review where appellant failed to provide this court with a transcript of the proceedings below or a stipulated statement of the fact…
Authorities Cited
- Bailey v. Malone, 389 So. 2d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- Veiga v. State, 561 So. 2d 1335 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Calicchio v. Calicchio, 693 So. 2d 1124 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)