WILLIAM PETER PLANES, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIANTHI PLANES, A/K/A MARIANNE PLANES, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the contempt order was moot, but modified the payment amount due to credited payments made by check.
[1] A supersedeas bond posted to assure payment of an underlying obligation moots the issue of contempt for failure to make that payment.
[2] A party who accepts and cashes checks designated as "advancement on payment of monies due" cannot later claim those checks do not reduce the designated 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 intelligenceAppellant was held in contempt for failing to make a $50,000 payment under a property settlement agreement. The appellant posted a supersedeas bond, a…
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 Property Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The appellant was held in contempt for his failure to make a $50,000 payment due December 31, 1982 under a “property settlement” agreement with his ex-wife. The issues presented which concern the availability of contempt to enforce this obligation, compare Salomon v. Salomon, 196 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1967) with Zuccarello v. Zuccarello, 429 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), and the technical sufficiency of the orders below, see Hammond v. Sandstrom, 376 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), have been completely mooted both by the fact that Planes has posted a supersedeas bond, which — the appellant concedes — assures payment of the underlying obligation without reference to the contempt power and by Ms. Planes’s specific waiver, in the light of her ability to resort to the bond, of any interest in enforcing the orders for payment by requiring Planes’s imprisonment.
As to the merit's of the order for the payment of $50,000, the only question now before us, we find no error with the exception of the trial court’s failure to reduce the amount due by $14,201.80. That figure represents the total of several checks made payable by Mr. Planes to Ms. Planes which bore the legend “for: advancement on payment of monies due on December 31, 1982 per marital settlement agreement dated October 15, 1980.”1 Having cashed these checks, Ms. Planes may not now claim that they are not to be applied to reduce the designated obligation. Henry v. Halifax Hospital District, 368 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); see Pino v. Lopez, 361 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. dismissed, 365 So. 2d 714 (Fla.1978). Accordingly, the orders under review are affirmed as modified by reducing the $50,000 obligation to $35,-798.20, plus interest from December 31, 1982.
Affirmed as modified.
. We do not include in this group a $1,485.97 check on which this language was substituted in Mr. Planes's handwriting at an unknown time for the typewritten statement, "Reimbursement for car repairs at Sun Chevrolet," which was crossed out.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Applestein v. Gustave Simons & Nat'l Sur. Corp., 556 So. 2d 748 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)…Appeal dismissed as moot. See Frank Silvestri Invs., Inc. v. Sullivan, 486 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Planes v. Planes, 468 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).…
-
Carrier v. Onell Amor and Donna Amor, 517 So. 2d 24 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Planes v. Planes, 468 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 349 So. 2d 1187 (Fla.1977); Cox v. Shelley Tractor & Equip. Inc., 495 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); McHale v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 409 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Farley v. Gateway In…
-
Mantici v. Mantici, 608 So. 2d 582 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Planes v. Planes, 468 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).…
Authorities Cited
- Salomon v. Salomon, 196 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1967)
- Pino v. Lopez, 361 So. 2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Hammond v. Sandstrom, 376 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Zuccarello v. Zuccarello, 429 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Wilhelmina Henry v. Halifax Hosp. Dist., 368 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)