Fishman v. Fishman

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Fishman v. Fishman

629 So. 2d 195, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11242, 1993 WL 458969

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 10, 1993

DocketNo. 92-0865

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 629 So. 2d 195 (Fishman v. Fishman) 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.

Bluebook

Fishman v. Fishman, 629 So. 2d 195, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11242, 1993 WL 458969 (Fla. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. We reject the former wife’s claim that the court’s previous order directing her to pay the former husband’s attorney's fees cannot be enforced by contempt. See Heitzman v. Heitzman, 281 So.2d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). The fees at issue were awarded as a consequence of the former husband’s efforts to enforce his visitation rights with the parties’ child. We believe that the enforcement of those rights is sufficiently important to authorize the enforcement of a fee order related thereto by the power of contempt. We also find the record contains evidentiary support for the trial court’s holding that the former wife willfully failed to pay the fees, although she had the present ability to do so. The record reflects the existence of an available fund from which a substantial portion of the fees could be paid. While the former wife testified she had pledged the use of that fund for other purposes, the record also reflects a basis for the trial court to deny credibility to this testimony.

ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., and MAGER, GERALD, Senior Judge, concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED. We reject the former wife’s claim that the court’s previous order directing her to pay the former husband’s attorney's fees cannot be enforced by contempt. See Heitzman v. Heitzman, 281 So.2d 578 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973). The fees at issue were awarded as a consequence of the former husband’s efforts to enforce his visitation rights with the parties’ child. We believe that the enforcement of those rights is sufficiently important to authorize the enforcement of a fee order related thereto by the power of contempt. We also find the record contains evidentiary support for the trial court’s holding that the former wife willfully failed to pay the fees, although she had the present ability to do so. The record reflects the existence of an available fund from which a substantial portion of the fees could be paid. While the former wife testified she had pledged the use of that fund for other purposes, the record also reflects a basis for the trial court to deny credibility to this testimony.

ANSTEAD and WARNER, JJ., and MAGER, GERALD, Senior Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

629 So. 2d 195, 1993 Fla. App. LEXIS 11242, 1993 WL 458969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fishman-v-fishman-fladistctapp-1993.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack