Tina M. Strochak v. Scott P. Strochak

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Tina M. Strochak v. Scott P. Strochak

164 So. 3d 142, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 7090, 2015 WL 2214549

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 13, 2015

Docket4D13-4707

StatusPublished

This text of 164 So. 3d 142 (Tina M. Strochak v. Scott P. Strochak) 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

Tina M. Strochak v. Scott P. Strochak, 164 So. 3d 142, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 7090, 2015 WL 2214549 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges an order denying her motion for civil contempt/enforcement against Appellee. We affirm without comment Appellant’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Because there was undisputed evidence, however, that Appellee failed to pay the full amount of alimony from March 2013 through July 2013, we remand for the trial court to enter an order awarding Appellant alimony arrearages. See Doyle v. Doyle, 789 So.2d 499, 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“ ‘The right of a wife to payment of alimony and child support in arrears is vested and while it is within the discretion of the court to refrain from holding the husband in contempt for non-payment, the wife is entitled to enforcement of the payment by legal process and by such equitable remedies as the trial court may determine to be appropriate or necessary.’ ” (quoting Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So.2d 945, 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977))).

Affirmed; remanded for further proceedings.

STEVENSON, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges an order denying her motion for civil contempt/enforcement against Appellee. We affirm without comment Appellant’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion. Because there was undisputed evidence, however, that Appellee failed to pay the full amount of alimony from March 2013 through July 2013, we remand for the trial court to enter an order awarding Appellant alimony arrearages. See Doyle v. Doyle, 789 So.2d 499, 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“ ‘The right of a wife to payment of alimony and child support in arrears is vested and while it is within the discretion of the court to refrain from holding the husband in contempt for non-payment, the wife is entitled to enforcement of the payment by legal process and by such equitable remedies as the trial court may determine to be appropriate or necessary.’ ” (quoting Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So.2d 945, 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977))).

Affirmed; remanded for further proceedings.

STEVENSON, GERBER and CONNER, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

164 So. 3d 142, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 7090, 2015 WL 2214549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tina-m-strochak-v-scott-p-strochak-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack