Court Opinion

ID: 7792295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-30 21:37:46.41515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:58.360359
License: Public Domain

I concur in the result because I believe the better ground upon which to base our reversal of the contempt judgment is that payment of a contractual debt cannot be coerced by a contempt citation, see Ex parte Parker, 334 So.2d 911,912 (Ala.Civ.App. 1976) (quoted in Dolberry v. Dolberry,920 So.2d 573, 576 (Ala.Civ.App. 2005)). I think that Namphy essentially made that argument when he asserted that the parties' settlement agreement incorporated into the agreed order (1) made payment of $17,900 "optional," and (2) set out the consequences for nonpayment. I do not believe the agreement was in any sense ambiguous. *Page 500