RUTH ELLEN WOODS, APPELLANT,
v.
MICHAEL A. BUTTER, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1982-07-13
No. 82-471
Before HUBBART, C. J., and HENDRY and JORGENSON, JJ.
418 So. 2d 295 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1982) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

In this property settlement agreement enforcement case, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's denial of the wife's exceptions to a General Master's Report, holding that a trustee was an indispensable party to the proceeding and that a husband's obligation to pay debts to third parties cannot be enforced through contempt proceedings.


Holding

The trustee was properly found to be an indispensable party to the proceedings, and a husband's obligation to pay a debt to a third party cannot be enforced by way of contempt. The trial court properly provided the wife with an enforcement alternative by allowing the trustee to appear and permitting the wife to move for an order compelling execution of the deed.


Headnotes

[1] A trustee is an indispensable party when a property settlement agreement creates rights, duties, and obligations for the trustee.

[2] A court may allow a party to file an affidavit submitting to jurisdiction in lieu of personal appearance.

Previewing 2 of 3 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

Key Quotes

“The law is well-established that a husband's obligation to pay a debt to a third party cannot be enforced by way of contempt.”

Establishes the controlling legal principle that contempt is not an available remedy for enforcing obligations to pay third-party debts in the context of property settlement agreements.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

The wife sought to enforce a complex 22-page property settlement agreement against her husband. The agreement required the husband to convey a Colorad…

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.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the wife of the trial court’s order denying wife’s exceptions to a General Master’s Report which arose out of a suit by the wife to enforce a property settlement agreement. No issue of alimony or child support is present.

The first issue presented deals with the husband’s failure to convey certain condominium property located in Colorado to a trustee who is not a party to this litigation. The Master found that the trustee was an indispensable party.1 Neither the Master nor the trial court erred in concluding that the trustee (Corbett) is an indispensable party. Ames v. Ames, 126 So. 2d 754, 756 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961).2 The trial court, in its order, specifically gave leave for the trustee to appear and left available to the wife an enforcement alternative.3 As a second point, the wife alleges the trial court erred in denying an exception to the Master’s Report regarding Paragraph 19 of the agreement.4

The law is well-established that a husband’s obligation to pay a debt to a third party cannot be enforced by way of contempt. State ex rel. Cahn v. Mason, 148 Fla. 264, 4 So. 2d 255 (1941); Burke v. Burke, 336 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); 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 decline appellant/wife’s invitation to retreat from this well-established principle. The judgment of the trial court is, accordingly, affirmed.

Affirmed.

. The property settlement agreement upon which enforcement is sought is a complex twenty-two page document which creates rights, duties and obligations on the part of husband, wife and the trustee. Paragraph 18 of the agreement is set forth fully here.

SALE OF POWDERHORN CONDOMINIUM: The parties agree to the sale of the Powerhom [sic] Condominium to Dan L. Ste-fanoff and Vicki Stefanoff for $275,000. There shall be a purchase money second mortgage to Deborah Corbett, as Trustee and any cash received at closing shall go to the Husband.

. The Ames court suggests that if the trust is passive or inactive, a trustee may not be an indispensable party. We do not reach that issue.

. The pertinent portions of the trial court’s order denying exceptions to the Master’s Report are:

2) Paragraph 2c of the Master’s Report is hereby specifically approved and ratified. The Court finds that the Trustee, Deborah Corbett, is an indispensable party to this cause and must appear before the Court in order for the Wife to receive the requested relief.

3) The Trustee may in lieu of personal appearance file an affidavit submitting herself to the jurisdiction of this Court.

4) Upon the filing of this affidavit, the Wife may move the Court for the entry of an order compelling the Husband to execute the deed to the Powderhorn Condominium pursuant to paragraph 18 of the Property Settlement Agreement. The Wife may notice her Motion for hearing on the Court’s motion calendar. . Paragraph 19:

PARTIES DEBTS: The Husband shall pay the outstanding obligations of the parties in an amount not to exceed $35,000.00. A list of these creditors and the amounts owed is attached as Exhibit A. The Husband shall have a reasonable time to satisfy these debts and obligations. The Husband shall hold the Wife harmless regarding all claims, demands and lawsuits, including attorneys’ fees incurred with reference to any creditor on the above mentioned list.

Exhibit A, referred to, schedules twenty-five different obligations ranging from $11.00 to $5,000.00.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • Riley v. Riley, 509 So. 2d 1366 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
    …CA 1981). . Solomon v. Solomon, 149 Fla. 174, 5 So. 2d 265 (Fla.1941); English v. Galbreath, 462 So. 2d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Shane v. Shane, 444 So. 2d 86 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984). . Ball v. Ball, 440 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Woods v. Butter, 418 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982); Schminkey v. Schminkey, 400 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Benson v. Benson, 369 So. 2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Burke v. Burke, 336 So. 2d 1237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); Howell v. Howell, 207 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 2d DCA 1968); but see C…
  • Ball v. Ball, 440 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
    …any way to his duty to provide child support or alimony to the wife. We find that the circumstances here rule out the use of the contempt power to enforce payment.1 State ex rel. Cahn v. Mason, 148 Fla. 264, 4 So. 2d 255 (Fla.1941); Woods v. Butler, 418 So. 2d 295 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1982); Schminkey v. Schminkey, 400 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Chapman v. Lamm, 388 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1980); State ex rel. Reno v. Richardson, 348 So. 2d 62 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); Corbin v. Etheridge, 296 So. 2d 59 (Fla. 1st…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw