Swain v. Swain

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Swain v. Swain

783 So. 2d 344, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5961, 2001 WL 434920

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 1, 2001

DocketNo. 1D00-3910

StatusPublished

This text of 783 So. 2d 344 (Swain v. Swain) 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

Swain v. Swain, 783 So. 2d 344, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5961, 2001 WL 434920 (Fla. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant (the former husband) seeks review of a “Second Amended Order on Motion to Compel and for Contempt” holding him in contempt for failure to comply with provisions of a marital settlement agreement incorporated by reference into an amended final judgment dissolving his marriage to appellee (the former wife). We affirm the order to the extent that it finds the former husband to be in contempt of court for (1) failing to pay “family support,” as that term is defined in the settlement agreement, together with applicable charges imposed by the clerk of court; and (2) failing to maintain insurance on his life as security for the support obligation. We reverse the remaining portions of the order because they purport to find the former husband in contempt for failing to comply with provisions of the settlement agreement relating to property distribution, and contempt may not be used to enforce such provisions. E.g., Collins v. Milazzo, 670 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Taylor v. Taylor, 653 So.2d [345]*3451126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We also reverse the portion of the order which awards attorney fees to the former wife because there are no findings regarding her need for such an award. E.g., Plantilla v. Plantilla, 111 So.2d 978, 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART.

WEBSTER, DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant (the former husband) seeks review of a “Second Amended Order on Motion to Compel and for Contempt” holding him in contempt for failure to comply with provisions of a marital settlement agreement incorporated by reference into an amended final judgment dissolving his marriage to appellee (the former wife). We affirm the order to the extent that it finds the former husband to be in contempt of court for (1) failing to pay “family support,” as that term is defined in the settlement agreement, together with applicable charges imposed by the clerk of court; and (2) failing to maintain insurance on his life as security for the support obligation. We reverse the remaining portions of the order because they purport to find the former husband in contempt for failing to comply with provisions of the settlement agreement relating to property distribution, and contempt may not be used to enforce such provisions. E.g., Collins v. Milazzo, 670 So.2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Taylor v. Taylor, 653 So.2d [345]*3451126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We also reverse the portion of the order which awards attorney fees to the former wife because there are no findings regarding her need for such an award. E.g., Plantilla v. Plantilla, 111 So.2d 978, 980 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000).

AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSED IN PART.

WEBSTER, DAVIS and BENTON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

783 So. 2d 344, 2001 Fla. App. LEXIS 5961, 2001 WL 434920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swain-v-swain-fladistctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack