R. ALLEN KEA, APPELLANT,
v.
DEBRA KAY KEA, 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 contempt is not the proper remedy for property settlement disputes involving marital debt unrelated to alimony or child support.
[1] Contempt is not the proper remedy for property settlement disputes concerning marital debt unrelated to alimony or child support.
[2] A trial court abuses its discretion by finding a party in contempt for failing to pay marital debt when that debt is not for alimony or child support.
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 intelligenceA former husband was found in contempt for failing to pay a mortgage debt as part of a marital settlement agreement. The final judgment of dissolution…
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 Marital Debt cases and more on FLexlaw
BROWNING, J.
This is a timely appeal from a final order finding the former husband in contempt for failing to adequately deal with marital debt. 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. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988), Marks v. Marks, 457 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), and Ball v. Ball, 440 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In those three cases, this Court reversed the orders holding the former husband in contempt for failing to pay debt, because the debt in each case was unrelated to alimony or child support. Another case in the same vein, Schminkey v. Schminkey, 400 So. 2d 121, 122 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), explains that to enforce a requirement to repay a debt due to a third party is improper because of the constitutional prohibition on imprisonment for debt.
In the instant case, it is clear that the debt at issue, a mortgage, is not related to alimony or child support. The final judgment of dissolution of the parties’ marriage states that “neither party shall receive an award of alimony,” and incorporates the terms of the mediation settlement agreement. The mediation settlement agreement states, in part, that “as husband’s equitable distribution of marital debt, he shall assume, agree to pay and hold wife harmless from the following: (A) Andalusia mortgage.... ” There is no hint of child support in the documents. Because the parties’ situation is analogous to those described in Hobbs, Marks, and Ball, the trial court’s finding of contempt constitutes an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we REVERSE and REMAND to the trial court for further proceedings.
BARFIELD and LEWIS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Schneider v. Schneider, 189 So. 3d 276 (Fla. 1st DCA 2016)…d the remainder as child support.” Ratifying this decision by the' former wife, the court found the former husband in contempt for his “refusal to timely pay the $543.64.” A finding of civil contempt is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Kea v. Kea, 839 So. 2d 903, 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003). However, a finding of contempt for unpaid debt is proper only if the debt is alimony or child support. Kea, 839 So. 2d at 904. Therefore, it is an abuse of discretion to hold a person in contempt for failure-to comply with…
-
Vassell v. Vassell, 912 So. 2d 1254 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…udgment of Dissolution of Marriage in their entirety. We find error in the Order on Motion for Contempt only to the extent the order is predicated upon Mr. Vassell’s failure to satisfy his obligations under the property settlement. See Kea v. Kea, 839 So. 2d 903, 904 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (reversing because “contempt is not the proper remedy for property settlement disputes” and explaining that “contempt is proper only if the unpaid debt is for alimony or child support”). Accordingly, the Order on Motion for…
Authorities Cited
- Hobbs v. Hobbs, 518 So. 2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Schminkey v. Schminkey, 400 So. 2d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Ball v. Ball, 440 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)
- Marks v. Marks, 457 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- LEE v. LEE, 710 So. 2d 186 (Fla. 1st DCA 1998)