Day v. Day
574 So. 2d 324, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1307, 1991 WL 18258
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided February 20, 1991·No. No. 90-1786·Published·Cited by 3 cases
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
Day v. Day, 574 So. 2d 324, 1991 Fla. App. LEXIS 1307, 1991 WL 18258 (Fla. Ct. App. 1991).
574 So. 2d 324 (Day v. Day) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
SONDRA HESS v. CHAD HESS
District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2019
Naples v. Naples
967 So. 2d 944 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2007)
Allen v. Allen
650 So. 2d 1019 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1994)