Smithwick v. Smithwick, 76--267
| Decision Date | 22 March 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 76--267,76--267 |
| Citation | 343 So.2d 945 |
| Parties | Sally Lee Schindel SMITHWICK, Appellant, v. Ollie M. SMITHWICK, Jr., Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Hugh R. Papy, Key West, for appellant.
Franklin, Ullman, Kimler & Entin and Sue Rose samuels, North Miami Beach, for appellee.
Before HENDRY, C.J., and HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
In this action for past due alimony and support payments plaintiff, Sally Lee Smithwick, appeals a final judgment (1) determining that she is not entitled to a judgment for alimony past due or future, and (2) reducing the amount of future child support payments.
On April 10, 1970 plaintiff and her former husband, Ollie, executed a property settlement agreement whereby Ollie agreed to pay alimony of $500 per month and additional lump sum alimony in annual payments commencing on December 13, 1970 in graduated increasing amounts; child support of $250 monthly per child until age twenty-one or completion of college, whichever occurred first; and the children's college tuition, room, books and fees. Shortly thereafter the parties were divorced. In December 1973 Ollie ceased paying alimony and reduced the monthly support payments to $100 per child. On June 20, 1974 Sally filed a complaint praying that the court enter a judgment against Ollie for the delinquent alimony and child support payments. Ollie answered and for affirmative defenses alleged that the agreement was obtained by misrepresentation and coercion, and his income had so decreased that he was unable to comply with its terms. Following the trial of the cause, the judge entered a judgment terminating any future alimony and determining that Sally is not entitled to payment of past due alimony because of her sufficient earnings in the past. The judgment also required Ollie to pay $6,300 in child support arrearages, payable in 63 equal monthly installments and in lieu of the college education provision of the agreement to pay $125 per month per child upon each child obtaining the age of eighteen. Sally appeals.
We first considered the trial judge's determination that Sally was not entitled to delinquent alimony and find error in this determination.
The right of a wife to payment of alimony and child support in arrears is vested and while it is within the discretion of the court to refrain from holding the husband in contempt for non-payment, the wife is entitled to enforcement of the payments by legal process and by such equitable remedies as the trial court may determine to be appropriate or necessary. Feder v. Feder, 291 So.2d 641 (Fla.3d DCA 1974); Hynes v. Hynes, 277 So.2d 557 (Fla.3d DCA 1973); Petrucci v. Petrucci, 252 So.2d 867 (Fla.3d DCA 1971). In his brief Ollie takes no issue with this statement of the law, but contends that under certain compelling or extraordinary circumstances, the trial court would be justified in refusing to enforce the payment of past due installments against a defaulting spouse. See Teta v. Teta, 297 So.2d 642, 645 (Fla.1st DCA 1974)....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pipitone v. Pipitone
...may determine to be appropriate or necessary." Doyle v. Doyle, 789 So.2d 499, 503 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (quoting Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So.2d 945, 947 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977)); see also State ex rel. Pittman v. Stanjeski, 541 So.2d 1214, 1216 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989). Although the lien provision of......
-
Kutz v. Fankhanel
...189 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. dismissed, 441 So.2d 632 (Fla.1983); Fox v. Haislett, 388 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So.2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Goff v. Goff, 151 So.2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963).5 See Pottinger v. Pottinger, 133 Fla. 442, 182 So. 762 (1938); Puglia v.......
-
Adams v. Adams
...762 (1938); Fox v. Haislett, 388 So.2d 1261 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Benson v. Benson, 369 So.2d 99 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So.2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977). These decisions reflect the rather straightforward notion that one who is required by court order to make specified p......
-
Roffe v. Roffe
...775 (Fla.3d DCA 1967), cert. denied, 209 So.2d 671 (Fla.1968); Thomas v. Thomas, 352 So.2d 564 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); Smithwick v. Smithwick, 343 So.2d 945 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Feder v. Feder, 291 So.2d 641 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). Accordingly, the trial court is directed, after remand, to determine th......