Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves an appellant who was required by a trial court order to pay $7,975.98 in overdue alimony to the appellee by December 15, 1989, to avoid incarceration. When the appellant failed to comply, the court issued a writ of bodily attachment based on the appellee's affidavit of nonpayment. The appellant, facing an IRS levy on the funds, paid the IRS instead of the appellee, asserting this as compliance with the court's purge provision. However, a subsequent writ was issued, leading the appellant to file an emergency motion to dissolve the writ, which was denied. The appellant also filed a complaint in interpleader in the U.S. District Court, attempting to resolve the conflicting demands of the IRS and the trial court's order. The appellate court reviewed the trial court's decision and affirmed it, concluding that the appellant's actions did not satisfy the court's conditions for purging contempt. Judges Hersey and Anstead concurred with the decision, confirming the trial court's authority and discretion in handling the appellant's noncompliance with alimony payments.
Legal Issues Addressed
Affirmation of Trial Court's Discretionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no reversible error in the handling of the appellant's noncompliance with alimony payments.
Reasoning: The appellate court found no reversible error in the trial court's decision and affirmed the order.
Contempt Proceedings for Nonpayment of Alimonysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court held the appellant in contempt for failing to pay overdue alimony, with a provision to purge the contempt by paying the owed amount.
Reasoning: On November 15, 1989, the trial court mandated that the appellant pay $7,975.98 in overdue alimony to the appellee by December 15, 1989, or face incarceration.
Effect of IRS Levy on Alimony Paymentssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant attempted to comply with the purge provision by paying the IRS, which had levied the alimony funds, but the court did not accept this as compliance.
Reasoning: On February 8, 1990, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) served a notice of levy on the appellant, indicating a seizure of funds, including alimony owed to the appellee.
Interpleader Action in Federal Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellant sought to interplead the funds in federal court due to the conflicting claims of the IRS and the appellee, but this did not alter the state court's contempt ruling.
Reasoning: Additionally, on March 7, 1990, the appellant initiated a complaint in interpleader in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, outlining the circuit court's order and the IRS levy while attempting to interplead the funds.
Writ of Bodily Attachmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court issued a writ of bodily attachment against the appellant following the appellee's affidavit of nonpayment, compelling the sheriff to bring the appellant before the court.
Reasoning: Subsequently, on February 1, 1990, the court, based on an affidavit of nonpayment from the appellee, issued an order for the clerk to prepare a writ of bodily attachment for the appellant.