Jimenez v. Jimenez, 74--497
| Decision Date | 11 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 74--497,74--497 |
| Citation | 309 So.2d 38 |
| Parties | Felix Albert JIMENEZ, Appellant, v. Aleida JIMENEZ, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Anthony F. Paterno, Miami, for appellant.
Louis Winter, Miami, for appellee.
Before BARKDULL, C.J., and HENDRY and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
Appellant seeks review of an order of contempt finding appellant delinquent in support payments of appellee, his ex-wife, and his child in the amount of $16,750.00.
Appellant, Felix Albert Jimenez and appellee, Aleida Jimenez were divorced in 1965. The final decree of divorce directed Felix Jimenez to pay $50.00 per week to the clerk of the court for the use of his ex-wife, Aleida Jimenez and their minor child, Daisy De Los Angeles Jimenez. Pursuant thereto, appellant made payments to the clerk of the court. However, when appellee, Aleida Jimenez was sent to jail for nine or ten months, appellant began making the support payments directly to his daughter Daisy. In addition, he paid her tuition for boarding school for four years, and furnished his daughter with spending money and the air fare to fly from boarding school to Miami during vacations. Appellant also employed Daisy when she finished school and while she was residing with her mother.
In November 1973, plaintiff-appellee, Aleida Jimenez, filed a motion for contempt and motion to modify final judgment of divorce as to alimony. She alleged therein that appellant failed to make the weekly support payments and was in arrears for the total sum of $16,200.00. Appellee further asked that the support payments be increased. Defendant-appellant raised the defenses of laches and estoppel in that appellee had not requested any alimony payments for a period of eight years and that he relied upon the direct payments to the child as being in keeping with the 1965 support order. The cause came on for trial and after the conclusion thereof, the court entered the herein appealed order finding appellant to be delinquent in support payments in the amount of $16,750.00 and adjudging him in contempt of court. The court further directed therein that appellant as of the date of the order make no more weekly support payments.
Appellant basically contends in this appeal that the court erred in finding that he was delinquent in the support payments because appellee failed to object thereto until eight years later. We cannot agree.
Mere inaction or delay for a long time in enforcing a claim for arrears does not constitute laches where no injury results from the delay. Blocker v. Ferguson, Fla.1950, 47 So.2d 694; Gottesman v. Gottesman, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 775. In the case sub judice, appellant, ex-husband,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pyne v. Black
...See Brumby v. Brumby, 647 So.2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Cartee v. Carswell, 425 So.2d 204 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Jimenez v. Jimenez, 309 So.2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).11 Kutz v. Fankhanel, 608 So.2d 873, 877 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992); Parrish v. Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, 525 ......
-
Dean v. Dean
...v. Lightsey, 150 Fla. 664, 8 So.2d 399, 400 (1942); see, e.g., Brumby v. Brumby, 647 So.2d 330 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994); Jimenez v. Jimenez, 309 So.2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). The husband has remarried three times over the past thirty years (1964-93), has had three additional children for whom he ......
-
Popper v. Popper
...Edward was, is not sufficient by itself to constitute laches or an estoppel. Stephenson v. Stephenson; Bloom v. Bloom; Jimenez v. Jimenez, 309 So.2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Gottesman v. Gottesman. However, this record suggests that any delay in enforcing alimony arrearages was caused not by ......
-
Wooten v. Wooten
...circumstances. See section 61.13(1)(a), Florida Statutes (1985); Tash v. Oesterle, 380 So.2d 1316 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Jimenez v. Jimenez, 309 So.2d 38 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). But the record does not reveal the relevant circumstances here. There was no testimony or other evidence on the basis of......