WILLIAM C. BOCK, APPELLANT,
v.
JOANNA LOUISE BOCK, 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 the husband's expenditures on jointly owned property did not justify a setoff against alimony obligations and that he willfully failed to pay alimony.
The husband sought to offset alimony payments by one-half of expenditures made on a jointly owned building. The trial court considered these payments …
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 Contempt For Failure To Pay Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
The husband appeals orders holding him in willful contempt for the failure to pay alimony and denying his petition for modification of the alimony award. He further appeals a subsequent award of attorney’s fees following an appropriate reservation of jurisdiction.
The husband sought to claim an offset against the alimony payments to the extent of one-half of certain expenditures he had made upon a building which was owned by the parties as tenants in common. The court concluded that it would consider these payments as bearing upon the husband’s ability to pay as a defense to the motion for contempt, but held that the court had no jurisdiction to actually set off the purported expenditures against the claim for alimony. While we would not go so far as to say that the court had no jurisdiction to impose a setoff against alimony, the facts of this case fall far short of establishing the “compelling equitable crite ria” which would permit a setoff to be made against the husband’s alimony obligations. See Chappell v. Chappell, Fla.App. 4th, 1971, 253 So. 2d 281.
There is competent substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the husband had the financial ability to pay the back alimony and that he willfully refused to do so. Once this determination was made, the husband was not entitled to have his claim for modification considered. Feder v. Feder, Fla.App.3rd, 1974, 291 So. 2d 641; Martin v. Martin, Fla.App.4th, 1972, 256 So. 2d 553.
The husband’s contentions with respect to the attorney’s fees are without merit.
AFFIRMED.
HOBSON, A. C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Mayer v. Mayer, 373 So. 2d 931 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979)…the husband was in contempt for non-payment, he was guilty of having unclean hands and equity will afford him no relief. Blanton v. Blanton, 154 Fla. 750, 18 So. 2d 902 (Fla. 1944); Martin v. Martin, 256 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972); Bock v. Bock, 336 So. 2d 661 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1976); Feder v. Feder, 291 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1974). Accordingly, paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment appealed from, dated January 6, 1978, are reversed. REVERSED IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART. LETTS and MOORE, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Chappell v. Chappell, 253 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971)
- Feder v. Feder, 291 So. 2d 641 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)
- Martin v. Martin, 256 So. 2d 553 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)