Metz v. Metz

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Metz v. Metz

546 So. 2d 41, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1539, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3652, 1989 WL 69085

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 28, 1989

DocketNos. 87-2864, 88-0007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 546 So. 2d 41 (Metz v. Metz) 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

Metz v. Metz, 546 So. 2d 41, 14 Fla. L. Weekly 1539, 1989 Fla. App. LEXIS 3652, 1989 WL 69085 (Fla. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinions

PER CURIAM.

We affirm in all respects except for the trial court’s adjudication of contempt, which we quash. In the final judgment the trial court made the following finding:

18. That the Respondent has the present ability to purge himself of contempt of court and/or has divested himself of the present ability to purge himself of contempt of court.

It was incumbent upon the trial court to make an affirmative finding upon the former husband’s present ability to pay and thus purge himself of the contempt at the time of adjudication. The trial court is directed, on remand, to make a determination whether that ability existed at that time. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985), and Pabian v. Pabian, 480 So.2d 237 (Fla., 4th DCA 1985).

GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ„ concur. ROBINSON, STEVEN D., Associate Judge, concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion.

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