contempt would only be an issue if you can prove the court ordered the other party to not transfer funds from the named account. Without such an order, the other party can move their money about as they desire.

You are being too dependent on the naming of the money. It isn't that you have to be paid from that account as much as the naming of the account is a reference to the money that is in the account. If the order says you get $XXXX as a share of the account in [bank], it doesn't matter if that account is closed or not or where the money actually comes from. It is a simple matter of; you are owed $XXXX and the other party must pay you.

If they caused the situation such that there is a penalty for withdrawal where there was none in the named account, they should be held liable for the fees. Such fees would have typically been addressed in the order as it is an effective reduction of the money available and as such, should have been addressed somewhere in the calculation of the division of property.


Basically all you want is for the court to enforce the order which would be to transfer the amount of money stated in the order to you. You didn't mention the state so nobody can research anything specific. Depending on how your state handles such matters, a show cause filing could serve the purpose but a motion to compel performance would be possible as well. You really aren't after a reason they haven't performed. You are simply wanting them to perform as the order directs.