Planes v. Planes

• Decision Date: 16 April 1985
• Docket Number: 84-2056 and 84-2460,Nos. 84-2055,s. 84-2055
• Citation: 10 Fla. L. Weekly 982,468 So.2d 366
• Parties: 10 Fla. L. Weekly 982 William Peter PLANES, Appellant, v. Marianthi PLANES, a/k/a Marianne Planes, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 366

468 So.2d 366

10 Fla. L. Weekly 982

William Peter PLANES, Appellant, v.Marianthi PLANES, a/k/a Marianne Planes, Appellee.

Nos. 84-2055, 84-2056 and 84-2460.

District Court of Appeal of Florida Third District.

April 16, 1985.

Rehearing Denied May 17, 1985.

Greene & Cooper and Sharon L. Wolfe, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Koeppel, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and JORGENSON, JJ.

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The appellant was held in contempt for his failure to make a $50,000 payment due December 31, 1982 under a "property settlement" agreement with his ex-wife.The issues presented which concern the availability of contempt to enforce this obligation, compareSalomon v. Salomon, 196 So.2d 111(Fla.1967)withZuccarello v. Zuccarello, 429 So.2d 68(Fla. 3d DCA1983), and the technical sufficiency of the orders below, seeHammond v. Sandstrom, 376 So.2d 466(Fla. 3d DCA1979), have been completely mooted both by the fact that Planes has posted a supersedeas bond, which--the appellant concedes--assures payment of the underlying obligation without reference to the contempt power and by Ms. Planes's specific waiver, in the light of her ability to resort to the bond, of any interest in enforcing the orders for payment by requiring Planes's imprisonment.

As to the merits of the order for the payment of $50,000, the only question now before us, we find no error with the exception of the trial court's failure to reduce the amount due by $14,201.80.That figure represents the total of several checks made payable by Mr. Planes to Ms. Planes which bore the legend "for: advancement on payment of monies due on December 31, 1982 per marital settlement agreement dated October 15, 1980."¹Having cashed these checks, Ms. Planes may not now claim that they are not to be applied to reduce the designated obligation.Henry v. Halifax Hospital District, 368 So.2d 432(Fla. 1st DCA1979);seePino v....