ALBERT ANDREWS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
ADA MAE WALTON AND THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Albert Andrews appeals his contempt of court conviction for failure to pay child support, arguing that the contempt power cannot be used to enforce payments assigned to the State under Florida law. The court affirms, holding that child support obligations retain their supportive nature even when assigned to the State, and thus remain enforceable through contempt proceedings.
The contempt power may be used to enforce child support obligations assigned to the State because the assignment does not change the fundamental supportive nature of the obligation. Imprisonment for failure to pay child support is not imprisonment for debt but enforcement of a court order for support, which is constitutionally permissible.
[1] Child support obligations are not rendered ordinary debts, unenforceable by contempt, by virtue of their assignment to the State for the purpose of collecting public assi…
[2] Imprisonment for failure to obey a court order of child support payment is not imprisonment for debt, even when the State is involved in enforcing the obligation.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Imprisonment for failure to obey a court order of child support payment is not imprisonment for debt.”
Establishes the critical legal distinction allowing contempt enforcement despite constitutional debt imprisonment prohibition
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAndrews was found the father of a child in 1978 and ordered to pay $18 weekly in child support. When the mother began receiving Aid to Families with D…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Child Support Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Albert Andrews appeals the order finding him in contempt of court for failure to pay child support alleging that the contempt power may not be used to coerce payments assigned to the State under section 409.-2561(3), Florida Statutes (1979).
We affirm. The court entered a final judgment of paternity against appellant in 1978 directing him to pay child support of $18.00 weekly. The State later petitioned the court alleging that appellee Walton was receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children, and the court entered an order that future payments be made through the clerk of the court. After a number of arrearage hearings, the court entered a show cause order alleging an arrearage of over $500.00. The notice gave a hearing date, told of the nature of the hearing, and advised appellant of possible admissible evidence and possible penalties, including incarceration.
At the hearing, the State established that appellee was receiving Aid to Families with Dependent Children and that support payments were overdue. Appellant, who did not retain counsel, testified that he was married, had three children and his wife was not working. The court sentenced appellant to thirty days in jail, postponing the sentence so appellant could use an upcoming paycheck to purge the contempt if he wished.
The only argument we address is the legality of incarcerating appellant to secure payment of an obligation which has been assigned to the State. Imprisonment for debt is prohibited by the Florida Constitution. Art. I; § 11, Fla.Const. Imprisonment for failure to obey a court order of child support payment is not imprisonment for debt. Ex parte J. G. H., 17 Fla. 362 (1879). See Spencer v. Spencer, 311 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). Appellant suggests that the assignment of support benefits to the State negates the “support” nature of the obligation so as to make it an ordinary debt unenforceable by contempt.
We note that the third district has addressed the issue herein raised, holding the assignment to the State negates the public necessity for enforcement by imprisonment. Chapman v. Lamm, 388 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
Indeed, as is suggested therein, debts not involving support may not be enforced by contempt powers, even if given effect in a final judgment of dissolution. State ex rel. Cahn v. Mason, 148 Fla. 264, 4 So. 2d 255 (1941); Corbin v. Etheridge, 296 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974); State ex rel. Gillham v. Phillips, 193 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966).
We do not think, however, that the present obligation is not grounded in support, as were the obligations in Mason, supra; Corbin, supra; and Phillips, supra. Nor do we think that the assignment required by section 409.2561(3), Florida Statutes (1979), changes the nature of the obligation. The action below is no different from any other support action. The custodial parent brought the action, and there is no dispute that the payments were not made.
Section 409.2561(3), Florida Statutes (1979), appoints the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services as attorney in fact of the recipient of state benefits to pursue enforcement of child support. That the State has an interest therein and actively prosecutes the action does nothing to change the support nature of the obligation owed by appellant to appellee.
The judgment below is affirmed.
SCHEB, C. J., and GRIMES, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Lamm v. Chapman, 413 So. 2d 749 (Fla. 1982)…reported as Chapman v. Lamm, 388 So. 2d 1048 (Fla.3d DCA 1980), which assertedly invalidated a remedy provided under section 409.-2561, Florida Statutes (1979), which conflicts with the Second District Court of Appeal’s holding in Andrews v. Walton, 400 So. 2d 790 (Fla.2d DCA 1981). We have jurisdiction under article V, section 3(b)(3), Florida Constitution (1980). The district court in Chapman determined that sections 409.2561(l)-(3) infringe upon the constitutional right to be free from imprisonment for de…
-
Cleveland Plummer v. Cindy Copeland & the State of Fla., 408 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…ection 409.2561(3), Florida Statutes (1979). We conclude that the contempt power may be used to enforce this payment. This same issue has been addressed, with differing results, by two other Florida District Courts of Appeal. In Andrews v. Walton, 400 So. 2d 790 (Fla.2d DCA 1981), the court reasoned that the assignment of child support payments to the state under Section 409.2561(3), Florida Statutes (1979) does not change the nature of the obligation. Accordingly, Andrews held that imprisonment for failure…
-
Arnet Vereen v. Dep't OF Health & Rehabilitative Servs., 409 So. 2d 1073 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)…PER CURIAM. AFFIRMED. Andrews v. Walton, 400 So. 2d 790 (Fla.2d DCA 1981). Contra Mackey v. Mackey, 402 So. 2d 41 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); Chapman v. Lamm, 388 So. 2d 1048 (Fla.3d DCA 1980). DAUKSCH, C. J., and COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- State ex rel. Albert B. Cahn v. Mason, 148 Fla. 264 (Fla. 1941)
- State of Fla. ex rel. Lon C. Gillham v. Honorable Charles M. Phillips, Jr., 193 So. 2d 26 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966)
- Chapman v. Lamm, 388 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Ex-Parte J. C. H., 17 Fla. 362 (Fla. 1879)
- Spencer v. Spencer, 311 So. 2d 822 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)
- McLEMORE v. State, 296 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)
- Corbin v. Etheridge, 296 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974)