Legal Opinion

Taylor v. Taylor

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided April 25, 1995No. 94-1995PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

The trial court’s denial of the wife’s motion for contempt is affirmed. Obligations incurred by a party in a marital property settlement are not subject to enforcement through contempt proceedings. See Finney v. Finney, 603 So.2d 92 (Fla.5th DCA 1992); Hobbs v. Hobbs, 518 So.2d 439 (Fla.1st DCA 1988).

We also strike as extraneous to the trial court’s ruling on the wife’s motion for contempt the final clause of the trial court’s order holding that “the Former Husband will not be required to pay the Second Mortgage in full at the sale but only to continue to pay the monthly payments in a timely…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. MacLaren v. MacLarenDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1993
  2. Salyers v. GoodDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1983
  3. Finney v. FinneyDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1992

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Collins v. MilazzoDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1996
  2. Bishop v. BishopDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 1995
  3. Swain v. SwainDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida · 2001

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API