Could this be 'Contempt of Court'

[Zigner]

Most here would jump all over and condem the OP if it were he who was painting and the wife complaining about it.

Cut the soapboxing Bali - The issue is NOT gender based AT ALL

There was no indication that the house was to be sold, in fact OP stated they were fighting for the house.

Fair enough - but the concern is still waste. In fact, in that light, it could be argued that the wife was allowing waste by NOT painting (depending on the reason for painting)

 

[tranquility]

Most here would jump all over and condem the OP if it were he who was painting and the wife complaining about it.

There was no indication that the house was to be sold, in fact OP stated they were fighting for the house.

The decision to sell the house or no has not been made which is why the judge wanted to keep things status quo ante in order to not hinder an eventual sale if it was determined necessary. (And, to prevent a vindictive spouse from hurting the asset. aka "waste")

I do not condemn the OP at all. I just don't think he will gain anything from moving for contempt if this is just a mere painting of a room. Absent odd colors or a poor job, it would seem to the judge the OP is more upset about control than about value or alienation. Because it is arguably within the order, I don't think the judge will asses sanctions for a frivolous motion against the OP. At the same time, I don't think the spouse will be held in contempt either. Unless the underlying facts of the case pointed out this was a real concern and the order was written specifically to prevent *any* changes at all, I just don't see a judge even assessing attorney fees against the spouse. That is even if he holds it was contempt.

 

[CSO286]

Most here would jump all over and condem the OP if it were he who was painting and the wife complaining about it.

There was no indication that the house was to be sold, in fact OP stated they were fighting for the house.

Then, here, let's fix Tranq's quote:

Yet, most here think that was not what the judge intended. Such verbiage is to prevent waste and to prevent changes that would result in a reduction of the home's value.

Happy now??

 

[tranquility]

Then, here, let's fix Tranq's quote:



Happy now??

FIX it? The fix is covered by the term "waste". The reason why I wrote it as I did was to encompass alienation of the property in case there is a sale too. Say the spouse contracted out and the contract was going to take some time to complete and/or potentially have a lien on the property. That would not be waste or reduce the value of the property, but it would hinder an actual sale.

 

[single317dad]

I believe that not only is the order intended to prevent actions that would harm the value of the marital property, but also to prevent use of community funds to increase the value of property that will be awarded to one party in the end. If they've already had an appraisal in order to determine the value, then one party spends community funds to increase that value, but the increase is never addressed in the division of property, then that party was unfairly compensated.

That said, while painting a room is, in a strict sense, a violation, it probably doesn't rise to the level of cheating the other party out of common property. I suppose it depends exactly how it's being done; is this a professional paint crew, moving furniture out, using a high-end finish, and making other alterations such as molding? That could cost several thousand dollars. Or did the wife buy a can of paint and a roller?

 

[Bali Hai]

I believe that not only is the order intended to prevent actions that would harm the value of the marital property, but also to prevent use of community funds to increase the value of property that will be awarded to one party in the end. If they've already had an appraisal in order to determine the value, then one party spends community funds to increase that value, but the increase is never addressed in the division of property, then that party was unfairly compensated.

That said, while painting a room is, in a strict sense, a violation, it probably doesn't rise to the level of cheating the other party out of common property. I suppose it depends exactly how it's being done; is this a professional paint crew, moving furniture out, using a high-end finish, and making other alterations such as molding? That could cost several thousand dollars. Or did the wife buy a can of paint and a roller?

Or did the wife's great grandfather give her a can of paint that was stored in his basement since 1970?

WHY does the wife NEED to paint anything with this court order in effect??

 

[Zigner]

WHY does the wife NEED to paint anything with this court order in effect??

Maybe the paint was peeling. Maybe the paint had mildew on it that couldn't be removed. Maybe the neighbor's child was visiting and used a sharpie to write all over the wall.

There are MANY reasons why painting could be needed.

 

[Bali Hai]

Maybe the paint was peeling. Maybe the paint had mildew on it that couldn't be removed. Maybe the neighbor's child was visiting and used a sharpie to write all over the wall.

There are MANY reasons why painting could be needed.

Or maybe the wife knows the OP will eventually possess the house and is painting a color he doesn't like to piss him off?

 

[Zigner]

Or maybe the wife knows the OP will eventually possess the house and is painting a color he doesn't like to piss him off?

If you'll notice, that matter was already addressed several times in earlier posts. There has been no mention by the OP of this being the case.

 

[Bali Hai]

If you'll notice, that matter was already addressed several times in earlier posts. There has been no mention by the OP of this being the case.

The wife is in violation of the court order. OP may (or may not) pursue the matter despite it being classified here as trivial.

 

[Zigner]

The wife is in violation of the court order.

That has not been determined.

OP may (or may not) pursue the matter despite it being classified here as trivial.

Agreed.

 

[Bali Hai]

That has not been determined.

Agreed.

It has been determined, by me.

The cop excersized discretion and decided not to issue a speeding ticket. It does not mean the person was not speeding and in violation.

The same would be correct for the wife in this case if the judge choose not to do their job.

 

[Zigner]

It has been determined, by me.

The cop excersized discretion and decided not to issue a speeding ticket. It does not mean the person was not speeding and in violation.

The same would be correct for the wife in this case if the judge choose not to do their job.

Apples/oranges.

 

[davew128]

WHY does the wife NEED to paint anything with this court order in effect??

I recall as a child, someone who put certain types of solid biological waste matter on the walls. Would you question repainting those walls after the matter was cleaned off?

 

[tranquility]

I recall as a child, someone who put certain types of solid biological waste matter on the walls. Would you question repainting those walls after the matter was cleaned off?

Cleaning is a renovation. Why risk contempt when things hit the fan?

Definition of RENOVATE
1
: to restore to a former better state (as by cleaning, repairing, or rebuilding)
2
: to restore to life, vigor, or activity : revive <the church was renovated by a new ecumenical spirit>