SIDNEY ADLER, APPELLANT,
v.
ETTAMAE ADLER, APPELLEE
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.
Sidney Adler appealed multiple orders from a divorce proceeding, including the dissolution judgment, contempt findings, and attorney's fees awards. The court affirmed the dissolution and related orders but reversed the contempt finding and attorney's fees award due to lack of evidentiary support, while upholding the trial court's imposition of a lien on appellant's property to secure alimony and child support payments.
The court affirmed the dissolution judgment and the trial court's authority to impose a lien on appellant's property to secure alimony and child support, but reversed the contempt finding and attorney's fees award because they lacked evidentiary support. The arrearages amount was corrected to $6,900.
[1] A trial court's finding of contempt and award of attorney's fees may be reversed if not predicated upon sufficient testimony in the record.
[2] A trial court may grant a lien against real property to secure the payment of alimony and child support when substantial arrearages exist.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“our review of the record reflects that there was no testimony upon which the finding of contempt or the award of attorney's fees could be predicated”
Establishes the basis for reversing the contempt finding and attorney's fees award—lack of evidentiary support in the record
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSidney Adler (appellant/respondent below) appealed from multiple orders in a divorce case against Ettamae Adler. The trial court issued a final judgme…
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 Fraudulent Conveyance cases and more on FLexlaw
KEHOE, Judge.
Appellant, respondent below, brings these consolidated appeals from the following judgment and orders entered by the trial court: (1) final judgment of dissolution of marriage, dated August 20, 1976; (2) order on respondent’s petition for rehearing and petitioner’s [appellee] request for attorney’s fees, dated November 4, 1976; (3) order of contempt and order on other pending motions, dated March 14, 1977; (4) order of contempt, dated June 14, 1977; (5) order granting attorney’s fees, dated June 20, 1977; and (6) amended order on wife’s [appellee] motion to set aside fraudulent conveyance, June 23, 1977.
We have carefully reviewed each of appellant’s contentions in regard to items (1), (2), and (3), listed above, and find them to be without merit. See, e. g., Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla.1977); Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla.1976); Sisson v. Sisson, 336 So. 2d 1129 (Fla.1976); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla.1976); Bosem v. Bosem, 279 So. 2d 863 (Fla.1973); Firestone v. Firestone, 263 So. 2d 223 (Fla.1972); Bowen v. Bowen, 347 So. 2d 675 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Goldin v. Goldin, 346 So. 2d 107 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Hazelwood v. Hazelwood, 345 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); Hawkesworth v. Hawkesworth, 345 So. 2d 359 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Long v. Long, 304 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); Kalmutz v. Kalmutz, 299 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974); Gamse v. Gamse, 291 So. 2d 620 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); and Lee v. Lee, 262 So. 2d 6 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972).
However, in regard to item (4), listed above, the parties agree that the amount of the arrearages is $6,900 rather than $7,900. Further, in regard to items (4) and (5), listed above, our review of the record reflects that there was no testimony upon which the finding of contempt or the award of attorney’s fees could be predicated. Therefore, item (4) is reversed as to the finding of contempt and the amount of the arrearages set forth should be reduced to $6,900, and item (5) is reversed as to the award of attorney’s fees.
In regard to item (6), listed above, it is our opinion that the trial court properly gave appellee a lien against certain real property owned by appellant in order to secure the payment of alimony and child support as awarded by the court. Substantial arrearages existed at the time of the imposition of the lien under the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, as modified, and it was within the discretion of the trial court to secure payment in this manner. §§ 61.11 and 61.13, Fla.Stat. (1977).
Affirmed in part; reversed in part with directions.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited (14 total)
- Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13 (Fla. 1976)
- Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So. 2d 56 (Fla. 1977)
- Firestone v. Firestone, 263 So. 2d 223 (Fla. 1972)
- Faircloth v. Faircloth, 339 So. 2d 650 (Fla. 1976)
- Bosem v. Arie Lionel Bosem, 279 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 1973)
- Sisson v. Sisson, 336 So. 2d 1129 (Fla. 1976)
- Kalmutz v. Kalmutz, 299 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Maxwell G. Hazelwood v. Hazelwood, 345 So. 2d 819 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977)
- Bowen v. Bowen, 347 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)
- Martin v. State, 304 So. 2d 483 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)