LUCAS, Judge.
Todd Kozel, the former husband, appeals two contempt rulings within an omnibus order entered by the family court after several hearings on an array of postjudgment issues. We affirm without comment the ruling that granted his former wife, Ashley Kozels motion for contempt as to Mr. Kozels nonpayment of child support. With respect to the ruling holding Mr. Kozel in contempt for violating the family courts injunction, we recognize that Mr. Kozel is presently challenging the merits of that injunction and an underlying judgment in a separate appeal pending before this court. But that really is of no moment for our disposition of this appeal. Regardless of the injunctions propriety, the order must be obeyed until vacated or modified by [the trial] court or until it has been reversed on appeal, no matter how unreasonable or erroneous. Kaylor v. Kaylor, 466 So.2d 1253, 1254 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (citing Friedman v. Friedman, 224 So.2d 424, 427 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969) ); see also Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Tampa S. R.R. Co., 101 Fla. 468, 134 So. 529, 533 (1931) (A party proceeded against for disobedience of an injunction is never allowed to allege as a defense for his misconduct that the court erred in its judgment in granting the injunction or in refusing to dissolve it ....). Finding no merit in any of his arguments in this appeal, we affirm the order below.
Affirmed.
KELLY and BADALAMENTI, JJ., Concur.
Specifically, the injunction enjoined Mr. Kozel from selling, transferring, alienating, pledging, forfeiting, hypothecating, encumbering, mortgaging, dissipating, spending and/or purchasing, and/or concealing and/or otherwise alienating any real property, personal property, securities, cash, or other assets or income of any kind or nature in which he holds an interest. Mr. Kozel does not dispute that he violated the terms of the injunction; he simply argues that the judgment which precipitated the injunction (which is the subject of his separate appeal) was erroneously entered.