Little v. Little

In this appeal, the defendant, whose marriage to the plaintiff had been dissolved, claims that *196the trial court erred in treating the plaintiffs subsequent motion for contempt as a motion permitting modification. We find error.

The marriage of the parties was dissolved on October 25,1985. The judgment provided, inter alia, a division of certain proceeds of a motor vehicle accident case. “The Plaintiff shall receive from the Defendant the sum of $140,000.00 and one-half of the remainder of the settlement due Defendant from the excess insurance carriers after payment for attorney’s fees, costs…