STEPHEN E. WALKER
v.
ROBYN WALLACE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A person found in contempt for violating a court order cannot challenge the contempt order on the ground that the underlying order or agreement was legally erroneous.
[1] A party found in contempt for violating a court order cannot challenge the contempt order on the ground that the underlying order or agreement was legally erroneous, prov…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Proceedings charging contempt for failure to obey an order cannot be used as a method of reviewing the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the original action”
Court's statement of the principle that contempt proceedings cannot be used to challenge the underlying order
A former husband was found in contempt for violating time-sharing provisions of a marital settlement agreement incorporated in the final judgment of d…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Modification Of Court Orders cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The former husband appeals an order holding him in contempt for violating the time-sharing provisions of the marital settlement agreement incorporated in the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. He challenges the court’s underlying interpretation of the terms of the marital settlement agreement. However, a person found in contempt cannot challenge the contempt order on the ground that the underlying order was legally erroneous. See Abdo v. Abdo, 320 So. 3d 791, 794 (Fla. 2d DCA 2021) (noting “[p]roceedings charging contempt for failure to obey an order cannot be used as a method of reviewing the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the original action”); Cummings v. Cummings, 723 So. 2d 898, 899 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (stating “failure to comply with a court order may be addressed by the court even if the order is erroneous, provided the court is acting within its jurisdiction”).
Even if we considered the meaning of the marital settlement agreement, we would agree with the trial court’s determination in multiple orders that the agreement does set forth a time-sharing schedule to be followed. The agreement allows for its modification once the former husband ceases
traveling for work, but modification of the agreement requires a court order,1 which the former husband has never sought. We conclude on this record that the court did not err in its order of contempt.
Affirmed.
WARNER, MAY and GERBER, JJ., concur. * * *