Mark T. v. Judith T.

In this appeal from a Family Court “contempt” order, the defaulting respondent claims that the Court exceeded its authority and abused its discretion in appointing the Clerk of the Court to do what respondent had failed to do and in requiring respondent’s profit sharing benefits and equity in the marital home to be used to satisfy child support arrearages and related attorney fees. We disagree and therefore affirm.

In July, 1979, the Court, following divorce of the parties and ancillary proceedings as to both child support and marital property division, ordered, inter alia, husband-respondent…