Court Opinion

ID: 9578112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:41:45.232658+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:22:41.526509
License: Public Domain

RENTTO, J.
(dissenting). I regret that I cannot concur in the above opinion.
The trial court decided this matter on the basis that-the defendant was able to comply fully with the order of the court. As to this it found “That the Defendant has been able to comply with all of the provisions of said Order during all times after May 6, 1957”. This is not supported by the evidence. If it was intended that the ability to comply referred to in this finding is a relative ability, then it seems to me that there should be a specific finding as to what amount the court thought the defendant could have actually paid. There is no finding to that effect in this case.
While imprisonment for contempt of court in these cases is a proper and necessary remedy, nevertheless, it is drastic and should not be indulged unless the noncompliance is substantial in nature. Without the suggested *551specific finding a reviewing court would not be advised of the extent of this deviation as determined by the trial court. Nor are we in a position to determine it from a record.
Nelson on Divorce, § 16.25 is cited as supporting the view that defense of inability to comply is a relative matter. The cases relied on by that authority, as I read them, do not support that position in the circumstances of this case. I would reverse.
SMITH, J. concurs with RENTTO, J.