MICHAEL F. MORRELL, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY MORRELL, 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 appellate court affirmed a trial court's contempt order against a former husband for failing to maintain life insurance as required by a divorce decree. The husband argued the obligation was part of property distribution and not enforceable by contempt, but the court found it was a support obligation.
The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the life insurance provision was a support obligation enforceable by contempt. The court rejected the former husband's other arguments, finding the court acted within its discretion.
[1] A trial court may enforce a life insurance provision in a property settlement agreement through contempt proceedings if the provision is determined to be in the nature of…
[2] A party may be judicially estopped from asserting a position in a subsequent proceeding that is contrary to a position previously taken in the same or related litigation.
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“We affirm the trial court’s order of contempt.”
Establishes the appellate court's decision to uphold the lower court's ruling.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA former husband failed to maintain life insurance as required by a property settlement agreement incorporated into a final divorce judgment. The tria…
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 Equitable Distribution Of Property cases and more on FLexlaw
We affirm the trial court’s order of contempt. The trial court found the former husband in contempt for failing to maintain the amount of life insurance required under the property settlement agreement and final judgment of dissolution of marriage. It then ordered the former husband either to secure the insurance or to deposit cash of an equivalent amount in an account for the former wife’s benefit, should he predecease her. The former husband contends that the final judgment did not provide for alimony or other support for the wife. Thus, he argues, the life insurance was a part of equitable distribution of property, and a breach of the obligation was not enforceable by contempt. To the contrary, the former wife argued at trial that the provision of life insurance was in the nature of support. Based upon the evidence presented, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the life insurance provision was a support obligation enforceable by contempt.1 We reject the other arguments made by the former husband, as the court acted within its discretion.
Affirmed.
WARNER, STEVENSON, JJ„ and STONE, BARRY J., Senior Judge, concur.