WILLIAM L. WILBUR, III, APPELLANT,
v.
ROSALIE M. WILBUR, N/K/A ROSALIE M. MARTIN, 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.
A party's homestead property equity can be considered evidence of their ability to pay a support obligation, even if it is homestead property.
Appellant was held in civil contempt for failing to pay support. He argued his homestead property equity could not be used to satisfy the obligation. …
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 Writ Of Bodily Attachment cases and more on FLexlaw
ALTENBERND, Judge.
William Wilbur appeals an order in a postdissolution proceeding that holds him in civil contempt for willful failure to pay support payments to his former wife, Rosalie M. Martin. We affirm the trial court’s finding that Mr. Wilbur owed Ms. Martin $61,806.80 at the time the contempt order was entered and that he owned real estate with sufficient accessible equity to give him the ability to pay this amount as a purge. Under the circumstances presented, the undisputed fact that the real estate from which he might obtain an equity loan to satisfy his obligation is homestead does not protect Mr. Wilbur as a matter of law from this obligation. See Gepfrich v. Gepfrich, 582 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).1 To the extent Mr. Wil bur expresses concern on appeal that he may be unable to procure such a loan despite his best efforts, we note that the order on appeal contains the language required by Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615(e). If a writ of bodily attachment were to issue based upon Mr. Wilbur’s failure to pay the purge, it would require a hearing within forty-eight hours at which evidence in this regard could be presented.2
Affirmed.
STRINGER and DAVIS, JJ., concur. . Notably, the current order does not place a lien on the property nor require a forced sale; it simply recognizes that the equity in the homestead, equity Mr. Wilbur has tapped into for other reasons, provides evidence of his ability to pay his support obligation to his former wife.
. There is no doubt that even in the absence of a home equity loan, Mr. Wilbur has some ability to make payments on his outstanding obligation. It may therefore behoove Mr. Wilbur to make good faith payments on the amount due while attempting to obtain the larger purge amount- — something Mr. Wilbur has resisted doing since 2003 when the obligation was declared nondischargeable.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spector v. Robert L. Spector, Robert L. Spector, P.A., 226 So. 3d 256 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017)…k or repair performed on the property. Art. X, § 4(a), Fla. Const. The Former Wife argues that a fourth exception, alimony creditors, has long been recognized. We agree. See, e.g., Anderson v. Anderson, 44 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1950); Wilbur v. Wilbur, 981 So. 2d 1252 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); Partridge, 912 So. 2d at 649; Siegel v. Siegel, 700 So. 2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Gepfrich v. Gepfrich, 582 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991). The exception relating to alimony creditors is founded upon our supreme court’s conclu…
Authorities Cited
- Gepfrich v. Gepfrich, 582 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991)