EDDIE R. FINNEY, FORMER HUSBAND, APPELLANT,
v.
CAROLYN D. FINNEY, FORMER WIFE, 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.
Contempt orders are reversed because failure to pay marital debts pursuant to a final judgment of dissolution is not enforceable by contempt, and the orders lacked the requisite finding of present ability to pay.
Appellant was found in willful civil contempt for failing to pay marital debts as ordered in a final judgment of dissolution. The contempt orders did …
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 Present Ability To Pay cases and more on FLexlaw
[*93] DIAMANTIS, Judge.
This is an appeal from two orders finding the appellant/ex-husband in willful civil contempt for not paying certain marital debts of the parties as ordered in the final judgment of dissolution. We reverse.
Contempt does not lie to enforce payment of a marital debt to a third party pursuant to a final judgment of dissolution of marriage because the final judgment is in the nature of a property settlement. Broyles v. Broyles, 573 So. 2d 357, 360 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Hobbs v. Hobbs, 518 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Meadows v. Bacon, 489 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986); Marks v. Marks, 457 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984).
Further, neither order contains the requisite finding of appellant’s present ability to pay the debts nor does the record contain any such finding by the lower court. The absence of a finding of appellant’s present ability to pay is a fatal defect requiring reversal. Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274, 1279 (Fla.1985); Fredericks v. Sturgis, 598 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Mauldin v. Roman, 588 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); Broyles v. Broyles, supra.
Accordingly, we vacate the contempt orders because failure to pay marital debts pursuant to a court order is not subject to the contempt power of a court. Moreover, the trial court failed to make the requisite finding of a present ability to pay.
REVERSED.
GOSHORN, C.J., and W. SHARP, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Taylor v. Taylor, 653 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)…PER CURIAM. The trial court’s denial of the wife’s motion for contempt is affirmed. Obligations incurred by a party in a marital property settlement are not subject to enforcement through contempt proceedings. See Finney v. Finney, 603 So. 2d 92 (Fla.5th DCA 1992); Hobbs v. Hobbs, 518 So. 2d 439 (Fla.1st DCA 1988). We also strike as extraneous to the trial court’s ruling on the wife’s motion for contempt the final clause of the trial court’s order holding that “the Former Husband will not…
-
Navarro v. Navarro, 906 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ligation to split the profits of an ongoing business, even when set forth in a dissolution decree, is not a support obligation which would be enforceable by contempt. See, e.g., Bishop v. Bishop, 667 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); Finney v. Finney, 603 So. 2d 92, 93 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992). Moreover, even if the trial court determined that a child support obligation was established by the language in the marital settlement agreement, no clear and definite amount for support was specified so as to hold the form…
Authorities Cited
- Eugenia Bowen & the Fla. Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla. 1985)
- Hobbs v. Hobbs, 518 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Broyles v. Broyles, 573 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)
- Marks v. Marks, 457 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Fredericks v. Sturgis, 598 So. 2d 94 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)
- Rodger G. Meadows v. Bacon, 489 So. 2d 850 (Fla. 5th DCA 1986)
- Mauldin v. Roman, 588 So. 2d 667 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991)