BENJAMIN POLLOCK, APPELLANT,
v.
T & M INVESTMENTS, INC., ET AL., APPELLEES
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.
Benjamin Pollock appeals a contempt order fining T & M Investments, Inc. $500 for chronic failure to comply with court-ordered monthly payments. The Third District Court of Appeal affirms the contempt order, rejecting Pollock's argument that the fine was inadequate given the company's substantial arrearages.
The court affirms the contempt order, holding that the $500 fine does not abandon or waive the accrued payments under previous contempt orders because the new fine was imposed in addition to, not in place of, the previously ordered payments.
[1] A contempt order imposing a fine does not waive or abandon previously accrued payments under prior contempt orders when the fine is imposed in addition to those payments.
[2] A party appealing a contempt order cannot argue that the order improperly abandoned a previous order when the appealed order explicitly states that the fine is in additio…
Previewing 2 of 2 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 appealed contempt order does not support this contention as the $500 fine was in addition to any other previously imposed fines and, therefore, in no way waives, abandons or changes the accrued payments under the previous contempt orders.”
The court's holding that the new contempt fine does not abandon or waive previous orders and payment obligations.
Pursuant to a May 20, 1974 final judgment, T & M Investments was directed to pay Pollock $175 per month commencing August 1, 1974. T & M failed to mak…
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 Enforcement Of Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff, Benjamin Pollock, appeals a contempt order fining the defendant, T & M Investments, Inc., $500.
Pursuant to a May 20, 1974 final judgment, commencing August 1, 1974 T & M was directed to pay Pollock $175 per month. T & M failed to make the required monthly payments and on January 31,1975 an order of contempt was entered directing T & M to pay Pollock $575 plus costs and attorney’s fees. T & M still failed to make payments and on March 26, 1975 the court entered a second contempt order directing T & M to pay Pollock $875 now owing plus the sum of $575 due under the previous order of January 31 for a total of $1,450. In addition, T & M was ordered to pay a fine of $50 per day commencing 10 days after March 26 and to continue until such time as T & M complies with the March 26 order. T & M did not comply and on April 23,1976 a third order of contempt, which is the subject of this appeal, was entered fining T & M an additional $500 for its chronic failure to abide by the previous orders and ordering that Pollock recover from T & M the sum of $1,500 for unpaid monthly payments accrued through January 1976 plus unpaid attorney’s fees and court costs.
Pollock contends that the trial court erred in the entry of this April 23 order fining T & M only $500 because as of that date T & M was in arrears for approximately $23,000 based upon the previous contempt order of March 26, 1975, and the failure to require payment for that amount resulted in an improper abandonment of the previous March 26 contempt order. We cannot agree.
The appealed contempt order does not support this contention as the $500 fine was in addition to any other previously imposed fines and, therefore, in no way waives, abandons or changes the accrued payments under the previous contempt orders.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pollock v. T & M Invs., Inc., 420 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…. Benjamin Pollock, and numerous contempt proceedings resulting in orders determining T & M’s liability for ar-rearages and imposing fines against it for contempt, which have been affirmed by this court on appeal: Pollock v. T & M Investments, Inc., 346 So. 2d 620 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); T & M Investments, Inc. v. Pollock, 374 So. 2d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). The plaintiff also brought a separate action [*101] seeking to set aside a fraudulent conveyance by T & M of the property which it had acquired from him, whic…