KENNETH MARVIN LEE, APPELLANT,
v.
VICKIE K. LEE, 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.
Florida appellate court affirmed contempt finding against father for failure to pay court-ordered half of mortgage payments, holding that the mortgage obligation was enforceable as part of child support rather than a non-enforceable property settlement.
A court-ordered obligation to pay a portion of mortgage payments on the former marital home is enforceable by contempt when it constitutes an integral part of child support duties rather than a mere property settlement.
[1] A court-ordered obligation to pay a portion of mortgage payments on the former marital home is enforceable by contempt when the obligation is an integral part of child su…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKenneth Lee and Vickie Lee had two children; the wife received custody of the younger child who was physically handicapped with special needs, and the…
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
PER CURIAM.
Kenneth Lee appeals an order of the trial judge finding him in contempt for failure to pay his court-ordered-half of the mortgage payments on the former domicile of the parties.1 We affirm.
If an order to pay all or a portion of a mortgage payment is solely in the nature of a property settlement, it is not enforceable by contempt. See Hobbs v. Hobbs, 518 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Marks v. Marks, 457 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); Ball v. Ball, 440 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In Ball, this court determined that it was necessary to look at the circumstances of the particular debt under consideration, as well as the specific provisions of the judgement itself, in order to determine if the obligation is one for alimony or family support.
The parties in this action have two children. The husband was granted custody of the older, the wife the younger. The younger child is physically handicapped and has special needs. This was a factor in granting the wife possession of the home. The husband was ordered to pay fifty dollars per week child support. In setting this amount, the court observed that the husband was required to pay half of the mortgage payments on the home and that the child was receiving social security disability. The trial judge determined, and we agree, that the requirement to pay one-half of the mortgage payments was a portion and integral part of his duty to contribute to the support of the child. These facts distinguish the circumstances existing in Hobbs, Marks, and Ball.
AFFIRMED.
MICKLE and DAVIS, JJ., and McDonald, PARKER LEE, Senior Judge, concur. . His other claim does not warrant discussion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
KEA v. KEA, 839 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003)…ebt. We reverse, and hold that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the former wife’s motion for contempt because, as Appellant correctly argues, contempt is not the proper remedy for property settlement disputes. See, e.g., Lee v. Lee, 710 So. 2d 186, 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998). In Lee, this Court explained that contempt is proper only if the unpaid debt is for alimony or child support, as it was in that case. Id. The Court distinguished the situation in Lee from those in Hobbs v. Hobbs, 518 So.…
-
Schroll v. Schroll, 262 So. 3d 832 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018)…upport or alimony obligations, see Schneider v. Schneider, 189 So. 3d 276, 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016), but that exception is not applicable here: These parties had no minor children, and the former wife received only nominal alimony. Cf. Lee v. Lee, 710 So. 2d 186, 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (noting that it is “necessary to look at the circumstances of the particular debt under consideration, as well as the specific provisions of the judgment itself, in order to determine if the obligation is one for alimony…1 / 2
-
Anicama v. Anicama (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)…t or maintenance of one to whom the duty is owed, the contempt power of the court cannot be invoked." Whelan v. Whelan, 736 So. 2d 732, 733 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (quoting Filan v. Filan, 549 So. 2d 1105, 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)); see also Lee v. Lee, 710 So. 2d 186, 187 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998) (“If an order to pay all or a portion of a mortgage payment is solely in the nature of a property settlement, it is not enforceable by contempt." (collecting cases)). Here, the mortgage payment was not considered alimony or…
Authorities Cited
- Hobbs v. Hobbs, 518 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Ball v. Ball, 440 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Marks v. Marks, 457 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)