George Tate challenged a contempt order arising from a divorce decree. The trial court found him in contempt for failing to make payments and imposed related relief, but the record did not contain a signed judgment establishing the obligation on which the contempt finding depended. The Court of Appeals reversed. A contempt order must rest on a valid, definite, and enforceable judgment or decree, and a court cannot use a nunc pro tunc entry to create action that was never previously taken. Because the record did not show an operative judgment requiring the payment at issue, the trial court was not authorized to hold Tate in contempt for failing to pay it. The court also concluded that the related award of attorney fees could not stand without a valid contempt judgment and the required findings. The contempt order and associated relief were reversed. Two judges concurred.