In the following case, the Former Husband was held in contempt of an order regarding the repayment of medical expenses. However, the contempt finding was premature in that the finding of contempt occurred in the same hearing as a clarification of the order at issue. An order that is indefinite or ambiguous may not be enforced by contempt. By finding that the order required clarification, it implicitly found that the order, as written, was indefinite or ambiguous, and thus it could not also find that the ambiguous or indefinite order was not followed.
In another part of the case, a finding of an amount to be reimbursed was likewise reversed and remanded because there was no substantial, competent evidence supporting the finding. The bills at issue had been attached to the motion, but attaching documents as exhibits to a motion does not make them evidence. The bills were never admitted into evidence, nor were they discussed at the hearing.
Read More: Gerber-v-Gerber