Plummer v. Copeland

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Plummer v. Copeland

408 So. 2d 686, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 18873

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJanuary 6, 1982

DocketNos. AC-294, AC-348

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 408 So. 2d 686 (Plummer v. Copeland) 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

Plummer v. Copeland, 408 So. 2d 686, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 18873 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

THOMPSON, Judge.

This ease presents the issue of whether the contempt power may be used to enforce the payment of child support assigned to the state under Section 409.2561(3), Florida Statutes (1979). We conclude that the contempt power may be used to enforce this payment.

This same issue has been addressed, with differing results, by two other Florida District Courts of Appeal. In Andrews v. Walton, 400 So.2d 790 (Fla.2d DCA 1981), the court reasoned that the assignment of child support payments to the state under Section 409.2561(3), Florida Statutes (1979) does not change the nature of the obligation. Accordingly, Andrews held that imprisonment for failure to pay child support payments assigned under Section 409.-2561(3), Florida Statutes (1979) is legal. A contrary result was reached by the third district in Chapman v. Lamm, 388 So.2d 1048 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), prob. juris, noted, No. 59,922 (Fla., oral argument heard September 4, 1981).

We adopt with approval the rationale of Andrews. Accordingly, the orders of contempt in the instant cases are affirmed.

ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.

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

THOMPSON, Judge.

This ease presents the issue of whether the contempt power may be used to enforce the payment of child support assigned to the state under Section 409.2561(3), Florida Statutes (1979). We conclude that the contempt power may be used to enforce this payment.

This same issue has been addressed, with differing results, by two other Florida District Courts of Appeal. In Andrews v. Walton, 400 So.2d 790 (Fla.2d DCA 1981), the court reasoned that the assignment of child support payments to the state under Section 409.2561(3), Florida Statutes (1979) does not change the nature of the obligation. Accordingly, Andrews held that imprisonment for failure to pay child support payments assigned under Section 409.-2561(3), Florida Statutes (1979) is legal. A contrary result was reached by the third district in Chapman v. Lamm, 388 So.2d 1048 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), prob. juris, noted, No. 59,922 (Fla., oral argument heard September 4, 1981).

We adopt with approval the rationale of Andrews. Accordingly, the orders of contempt in the instant cases are affirmed.

ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

408 So. 2d 686, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 18873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plummer-v-copeland-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack