W.E. BISHOP, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
PATRICIA BISHOP, 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.
Obligations incurred in a marital property settlement are not subject to enforcement through civil contempt proceedings.
Following a dissolution of marriage, the husband agreed to pay certain marital debts and maintain health insurance for the children. A subsequent orde…
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 Civil Contempt cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The marriage of W.E. Bishop, Jr. (husband) and Patricia Bishop (wife) was dissolved on June 27, 1991. The final order of dissolution included the husband’s agreement to pay certain marital debts. The order also required the husband to maintain health insurance for the benefit of the parties’ two minor children.
The order presently here on review, dated September 20, 1994, finds that the husband failed to maintain the children’s health insurance, holds him in civil contempt for failure to pay a marital debt,1 and orders him to pay the children’s incurred medical expenses ($5982.80), the marital debt ($4892.28), and the wife’s attorney’s fee ($500). The husband appeals that aspect of the order holding him in civil contempt.
This court has held that “[ojbligations incurred by a party in a marital property settlement are not subject to enforcement through contempt proceedings.” Taylor v. Taylor, 653 So. 2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995); cf. Hobbs v. Hobbs, 518 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988) (holding that a husband cannot be imprisoned for failure to pay a third party a joint debt incurred by the husband and wife). We note however that the trial judge did not have the benefit of our decision in Taylor at the time he entered the order under review.
We thus reverse that part of the order holding the husband in civil contempt for failure to pay a marital debt, without prejudice to the wife to seek any other lawful means of enforcement in the event the debt is not satisfied as ordered. We affirm in all other respects.
Reversed in part, affirmed in part.
ERVIN, WOLF and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur. . Although a finding of civil contempt was made, imprisonment was not ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montanez v. Montanez, 697 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…nt that he does not satisfy this debt. See Crea, 473 So. 2d 25 (although equitable remedy of contempt was not available to former wife to enforce former husband’s obligation to pay third party debt, she had a remedy at law); accord Bishop v. Bishop, 667 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Nor does it mean that the trial court is powerless to act in enforcing its judgment. See Seng v. Seng, 590 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (although contempt was not an appropriate enforcement mechanism, trial court could use ot…
-
Navarro v. Navarro, 906 So. 2d 341 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…ent, not an order for support. We conclude that the obligation 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 am…
-
Johnson v. Katarzyna Johnson (Fla. 5th DCA 2024)…lth insurance premiums is not arrearages for the amount of nonpayment. It is the amount of out-of-pocket medical expenses Wife incurred from being uninsured during the time Husband was obligated to pay her insurance premiums. See Bishop v. Bishop, 667 So. 2d 246, 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995) (affirming portion of contempt order finding Husband failed to pay children’s health insurance premiums and ordering him to pay their incurred medical expenses). Consequently, the trial court’s finding that the May 2021 ord…
Authorities Cited
- Hobbs v. Hobbs, 518 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 653 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)