Day v. Day
This text of 574 So. 2d 324 (Day v. Day) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
The trial court did not err in considering the former husband’s disability benefits when determining that he did in fact have the ability to comply with both the previous judgments and orders of the court and the purge provision of the contempt order. Mims v. Mims, 442 So.2d 102 (Ala.Civ.App.1983); Riley v. Riley, 82 Md.App. 400, 571 A.2d 1261, 1266, cert. denied, 320 Md. 222, 577 A.2d 50 (1990); Christmas v. Christmas, 787 P.2d 1267, 1268 (Okla.1990); Murphy v. Murphy, 302 Ark. 157, 787 S.W.2d 684, 685 (1990). Accordingly, we affirm.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
574 So. 2d 324, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1307, 1991 WL 18258, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/day-v-day-fladistctapp-1991.