Naster v. Naster
Decision Date | 08 April 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 32666,32666 |
Citation | 163 So.2d 264 |
Parties | Bert NASTER, Petitioner, v. Lee NASTER, Respondent. |
Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Joseph Pardo, Miami, for petitioner.
Ralph R. Quillian, Hollywood, for respondent.
By petition for a writ of certiorari we have for review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District, allegedly in conflict with prior decisions of this Court.
The alleged point of cleavage involves a consideration of the extent of a husband's burden when defending against an alimony contempt citation on the ground of financial inability to pay.
The decision submitted for review is Naster v. Naster, Fla.App., 151 So.2d 313. Our preliminary examination of the petition suggested prima facie jurisdictional conflict between the subject decision and those which we hereafter discuss. After oral argument and a more detailed study of the petition, record and briefs, we have concluded that the apparent jurisdictional conflict does not exist.
The petitioner Bert Naster appealed to the District Court seeking relief against an amended contempt order entered by a chancellor. The problem presented to us is suggested by the following summary of the situation which we quote from the decision of the District Court:
The petitioner contends here that by its decision the District Court disregarded prior decisions of this Court regarding a husband's lack of financial ability as a defense to a contempt citation based upon his failure to comply with an alimony decree. Initially we leaned to the view that the instant decision collided with prior decisions of this Court on the subject. Our subsequent study of the cases, however, of the importance of the problem, and our was more apparent than real. Because of the importance of the proble m, and our own concern that some confusion might otherwise exist, we have elected to state our reasons for the conclusion which we reach.
The petitioner insists that inability to pay is an absolute defense to a contempt citation for failure to comply with an alimony decree. He refers to the language of the District Court opinion which we have quoted. He then asserts that the chancellor found him unable to comply with the final decree but, nonetheless, found him guilty of contempt for failure to do so.
Reference to the quoted language from the District Court opinion does not support this contention. It is there revealed that the chancellor's findings did indicate that the petitioner was unable to meet the alimony payments of the final decree which had become delinquent. However, the chancellor further found that although the petitioner could not make up the total delinquencies in one payment, he was capable of paying the accumulated delinquencies in installments. Having found ability to pay in installments, the chancellor ordered such payment and stipulated that a failure to meet these requirements would result in the contempt penalty. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Faircloth v. Faircloth, W--506
...it then became appellant's burden to prove that he was unable to pay through circumstances beyond his control (citing Naster v. Naster, Fla., 163 So.2d 264); that appellant's bare assertions that he was unable to pay were insufficient; that while appellant offered to produce financial recor......
-
Rose v. Palm Beach County
...of the State of Florida provides: "No person shall be imprisoned for debt, except in cases of fraud."11 See, e. g., Naster v. Naster, 163 So.2d 264 (Fla.1964).12 § 142.16, Fla.Stat. (1977).13 See Simmons v. State, 160 Fla. 626, 36 So.2d 207 (1948).14 "A statute which attempts to restrict th......
-
Faircloth v. Faircloth
...it then became appellant's burden to prove that he was unable to pay through circumstances beyond his control (citing Naster v. Naster, Fla., 163 So.2d 264); that appellant's bare assertions that he was unable to pay were insufficient; that while appellant offered to produce financial recor......
-
Kalmutz v. Kalmutz
...consistent with the facts and circumstances and applicable law. See 10A Fla.Jur., Dissolution of Marriage § 365 et seq; Naster v. Naster, Fla.1964, 163 So.2d 264. Except as aforesaid in all other respects the order on master's report, final judgment and amended final judgment are affirmed. ......