Weintraub v. Weintraub

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Weintraub v. Weintraub

390 So. 2d 824, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18172

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 4, 1980

DocketNo. UU-157

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 390 So. 2d 824 (Weintraub v. Weintraub) 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

Weintraub v. Weintraub, 390 So. 2d 824, 1980 Fla. App. LEXIS 18172 (Fla. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

MILLS, Chief Judge.

After the trial court had entered a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and that final order was appealed to this court and after both the trial court and this court denied motions to stay, appellant-husband filed a motion for contempt based on appel-lee-wife’s failure to comply with the final judgment in that she allegedly failed to deliver or make available personal property called for in the judgment.

The trial court entered an order entitled “Order Denying Parties’ Motions for Contempt Judgments” in which it asserted it had no jurisdiction to grant or deny the motion at issue here and another motion by the appellee-wife or to even entertain them. It is from this order that appellant-husband appeals. We reverse.

The trial court has the authority to enforce its orders, judgments, and decrees when enforcement of the award has not been stayed or superseded. Glasser v. Hacket, 37 Fla. 358, 20 So. 532 (1896); Coggan v. Coggan, 183 So.2d 839 (Fla.2d DCA 1966). Accordingly, we reverse and remand to the trial court for its consideration of appellant’s motion for contempt on the merits.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

BOOTH and LARRY G. SMITH, JJ., concur.

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