MARGARET M. HALPERN, APPELLANT,
v.
STANLEY N. HALPERN, APPELLEE
BASKIN, Judge.
In accordance with our concern for the substance rather than the form of payments made pursuant to a dissolution decree, regardless of the label of “property settlement” or “alimony”; and in recognition that the name assigned may not be conclusive of the question of the character of the obligation, see Underwood v. Underwood, 64 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1953); Fagan v. Lewis, 374 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), we hold that the sums referred to in paragraph 3 of the order portion of the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage dated May 23,1980, constituted alimony obligations enforceable by contempt and not a property settlement. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the cause to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the wife’s motion for contempt.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pabian v. Pabian, 480 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). However, if the character of the obligation is in the nature of alimony, support or maintenance then enforcement can be effected by contempt. McCombes v. McCombes, 440 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Halpern v. Halpern, 436 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). In Halpern, the Third District Court of Appeal, citing Underwood v. Underwood, 64 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1953) noted that, in examining obligations to see if contempt proceedings are permitted, “the name assigned may not be conclusive…
-
Winset v. Fine, 565 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…ts title, the “Property Settlement Agreement” is not a true property settlement agreement because it purports to provide for the support of the wife and the then minor son rather than to exchange financial rights and obligations. Halpern v. Halpern, 436 So. 2d 366 (Fla.3d DCA 1983); Zuccarello v. Zuccarello, 429 So. 2d 68 (Fla.3d DCA 1983); Johnson v. Johnson, 403 So. 2d 1388 (Fla.2d DCA 1981); see also Petty v. Petty, 548 So. 2d 793 (Fla.lst DCA 1989); see generally Kuhnke v. Kuhnke, 556 So. 2d 1121 (Fla.3d…
-
Scharf v. Smith, 498 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986)…ans of enforcing the dissolution judgment. The legal effect of an order “is determined not by what it is called, but by what it does." Boyd v. Boyd, 478 So. 2d 356, 357 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 67 (Fla.1986); Halpern v. Halpern, 436 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). . Specifically, the order required the disbursal to the trust of a specified portion of the payments on a promissory note given Scharf during his lifetime in return for his shares in the family business. The agreement and judgme…
Authorities Cited
- Underwood v. Underwood, 64 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1953)
- Smith v. Smith, 374 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Fagan v. Gertrude Lewis, 374 So. 2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)