¶1The trial court did not err in considering the former husband’s disability benefits when determining that he did in fact have the ability to comply with both the previous judgments and orders of the court and the purge provision of the contempt order. Mims v. Mims, 442 So.2d 102 (Ala.Civ.App.1983); Riley v. Riley, 82 Md.App. 400, 571 A.2d 1261, 1266, cert. denied, 320 Md. 222, 577 A.2d 50 (1990); Christmas v. Christmas, 787 P.2d 1267, 1268 (Okla.1990); Murphy v. Murphy, 302 Ark. 157, 787 S.W.2d 684, 685 (1990). Accordingly, we affirm.
574 So. 2d 324
Day v. Day
District Court of Appeal of Florida
Decided February 20, 1991
District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1991-02-20
Cited by 2 later decisions — most recently September 2007
2 state decisions
Relies on County Commissioners v. Schrodel · Murphy v. Murphy · 82 Md. App. 400 - Riley v. Riley
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1991-02-20
View the full empirical analysis of this case →