Wright v. Wright

331 So. 2d 395
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided April 30, 1976·No. 75-1273·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

331 So.2d 395 (1976)

Simpson L. WRIGHT, Appellant,
v.
Carol T. WRIGHT, Appellee.

No. 75-1273.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 30, 1976.

S. Robert Zimmerman, Pompano Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

We have considered appellant's brief and appendix and find that paragraph 3 of the order of June 13, 1975, is erroneous because it purports to find appellant in contempt for failure to make payments due in the future. It may be when the time comes for these payments to be made appellant will be financially unable to do so without being contemptuous. In other words, an adjudication of contempt should relate to past conduct, not prospective conduct.

However, except for paragraph 3, the order is proper. We therefore direct that the order appealed from be modified by deleting paragraph 3 therefrom.

Affirmed as modified.

WALDEN, C.J., and OWEN and DOWNEY, JJ., concur.

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

Wright v. Wright, 331 So. 2d 395 (Fla. Ct. App. 1976).

331 So. 2d 395 (Wright v. Wright) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Contempt of J.A.P.
2022 Ohio 613 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 2022)
Dolberg v. Sinkoff
860 So. 2d 519 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2003)
Smathers v. Crane
34 Fla. Supp. 2d 135 (Volusia County Court, 1989)
Ragosta v. Ragosta
490 So. 2d 233 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Acosta v. Acosta
409 So. 2d 196 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1982)
Board of Education v. Brunswick Education Ass'n
401 N.E.2d 440 (Ohio Supreme Court, 1980)