SIMPSON L. WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
v.
CAROL T. WRIGHT, APPELLEE
SIMPSON L. WRIGHT, APPELLANT,
CAROL T. WRIGHT, APPELLEE
331 So. 2d 395
Florida District Court of Appeal, Fourth District (1976)
Negative Treatment
Cited by 6 cases
Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.
We have considered appellant’s brief and appendix and find that paragraph 3 of the order of June 13, 1975, is erroneous because it purports to find appellant in contempt for failure to make payments due in the future. It may be when the time comes for these payments to be made appellant will be financially unable to do so without being contemptuous. In other words, an adjudication of contempt should relate to past conduct, not prospective conduct.
However, except for paragraph 3, the order is proper. We therefore direct that the order appealed from be modified by deleting paragraph 3 therefrom.
Affirmed as modified.
WALDEN, C. J., and OWEN and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ragosta v. Ragosta, 490 So. 2d 233 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)…band was current in his support payments at the time the order was entered. The order was therefore improperly entered and is reversed. An adjudication of civil contempt should relate to past conduct, not prospective conduct. See Wright v. Wright, 331 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). Additionally, the failure to make payments when they later become due might not be contemptuous if the appellant does not then have the ability to pay, thus not willfully failing to do so. Incarceration for civil contempt cannot…
-
Acosta v. Acosta, 409 So. 2d 196 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…lity either negligently or intentionally in order to frustrate the intended purpose of the order. Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla.1976). See also Hammond v. Sandstrom, 376 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), and cases cited; Wright v. Wright, 331 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976). A notice of compliance having been filed with this court indicating that the arrearag-es cited in the order on motion for contempt have been paid, the remaining provisions of the trial court’s order are moot. We therefore decl…
-
Dolberg v. Sinkoff, 860 So. 2d 519 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003)…. [directed] incarceration for failure to comply with a requirement to pay in the future, rather than to compel compliance with previously fixed obligations respecting which the husband was in default”) (citation omitted); see also Wright v. Wright, 331 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) (where this Court stated “an adjudication of contempt should relate to past conduct, not prospective conduct.”) Accordingly, we reverse and remand as to this issue for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We find all other…