Pabian v. Pabian, 84-1986
| Decision Date | 31 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1986,84-1986 |
| Citation | 480 So.2d 237,11 Fla. L. Weekly 98 |
| Parties | 11 Fla. L. Weekly 98 Allan PABIAN, Appellant, v. Paula PABIAN et al., Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bennett Oppenheimer, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Alan D. Methelis of Law Offices of Eric H. Golden, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee--Paula Pabian.
Allan Pabian (husband) appeals from an order of the trial court denying his exceptions to two general master's reports and adopting said reports. Essentially, the husband complains that the court erred in 1) approving the master's recommendation that the husband pay the wife's past due automobile payments and those coming due in the future; 2) in failing to grant the husband a full and adequate hearing on his exceptions; 3) in finding the husband in contempt for nonpayment of the wife's automobile payments as ordered in the final judgment of dissolution; 4) in finding the husband in contempt where there was insufficient evidence of the husband's ability to pay; and 5) in approving the master's recommendation that the husband be incarcerated for contempt where no finding was made of the husband's present ability to pay the purge amount.
Initially, we find the complaint vis-a-vis the hearing on the exceptions to the master's reports without merit. A hearing was held, it simply did not last as long as the husband desired. We further hold that the only logical interpretation of paragraph seven of the final judgment is that the trial court intended that the husband be responsible for any and all payments on the wife's automobile. In addition, it appears that the husband failed to meet his burden of proving his inability to pay.
Paragraph seven of the final judgment of March, 1984, ordered that the husband convey to the wife his interest in her automobile and that he also pay all outstanding obligations thereon. On July 5, 1984, the general master filed his report finding that the husband was then in arrears in paying the automobile payments in the sum of $860.19, which the wife had been required to pay. Furthermore, the master found from the evidence that:
The Ex-Husband has the ability to comply with provisions of the Final Judgment and is refusing to do so, or, in the alternative, his inability is due to his own negligence or intentional divestiture in order to undermine the intent of the court's Final Judgment.
The master recommended that the court order the husband to pay the entire amount due on the wife's automobile by a specific date and, failing same, that he be considered for contempt sanctions.
On July 17 the master filed a report finding that the husband had failed to make the required automobile payments and recommended the husband be held in contempt for failure to pay the $860.19 due the wife for her automobile payments and that he be incarcerated on a specific date unless he purged himself by making such payment. The court approved said recommendation.
The husband contends that the court erred in holding him in contempt because such an order constitutes imprisonment for debt in violation of the Florida Constitution. We concede the validity of the principle but deny its applicability to the instant case, because of the nature of the obligation involved. If the obligation is in the nature of settlement of property rights as opposed to alimony, support or maintenance of one to whom a duty is owed, the contempt power of the court to enforce its payment cannot be invoked. State ex rel. Cahn v. Mason, 4 So.2d 255 (Fla.1941); Schminkey v. Schminkey, 400 So.2d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Ball v. Ball, 440 So.2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). However, if the character of the obligation is in the nature of alimony, support or maintenance then enforcement can be effected by contempt. McCombes v. McCombes, 440 So.2d 683 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Halpern v. Halpern, 436 So.2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
In Halpern, the Third District Court of Appeal, citing Underwood v. Underwood, 64 So.2d 281 (Fla.1953) noted that, in examining obligations to see if contempt proceedings are permitted, "the name assigned may not be conclusive of the question of the character of the obligation."...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Contella v. Contella, 89-2225
...So.2d 477 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988), rev. denied, 531 So.2d 1354 (Fla.1988); Metz v. Metz, 546 So.2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Pabian v. Pabian, 480 So.2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985).8 See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985).9 While the general practice upon the pronouncement of a sentence of con......
-
Baggett v. Baggett, 93-3357
...alimony, support, or maintenance--is not enforceable by contempt. Porter v. Porter, 521 So.2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Pabian v. Pabian, 480 So.2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). See also Weisfeld v. Weisfeld, 545 So.2d 1341 (Fla.1989) (applying "analytical approach" to evaluate whether workers' c......
-
Metz v. Metz
...to make a determination whether that ability existed at that time. See Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So.2d 1274 (Fla.1985), and Pabian v. Pabian, 480 So.2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985). GLICKSTEIN and GUNTHER, JJ., ROBINSON, STEVEN D., Associate Judge, concurs in part and dissents in part with opinion. RO......
-
Vetrick v. Hollander
...is owed, the contempt power of the court cannot be invoked." Filan v. Filan, 549 So.2d 1105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)(citing Pabian v. Pabian, 480 So.2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)). The enforcement through contempt of debts not involving support violates Article I, section 11 of the Florida Constitu......