GLENWOOD BROOKS COBB, APPELLANT,
v.
MOLLY ANN COBB, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Affirmed contempt order for nonpayment of court-ordered household furnishings awarded as marital duty, holding that contempt proceedings may enforce such obligations despite constitutional debt-imprisonment prohibition.
Contempt proceedings may be used to enforce payment of court-ordered obligations arising from marital duty, notwithstanding the constitutional prohibition on imprisonment for debt.
[1] Contempt proceedings may enforce payment of obligations arising from marital duty despite constitutional prohibition on imprisonment for debt, based on public necessity o…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“not as any settlement of property rights between the parties but upon a marital duty of the husband to the wife”
Trial court's finding regarding the nature of the furnishings award
Appellant failed to make payments on household furnishings awarded to appellee in a dissolution decree. The trial court found the furnishings were awa…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contempt Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant failed to make payments on certain household furnishings awarded to appellee pursuant to a final decree of dissolution. The Circuit Court found that the furnishings had been awarded to appellee “not as any settlement of property rights between the parties but upon a marital duty of the husband to the wife,” and further found that appellant had the ability to pay for the furnishings but wilfully refused to do so. Consequently, the court ordered appellant to make satisfactory arrangements with the creditor within 30 days or be incarcerated in the county jail for a period not exceeding 90 days.
Appellant now urges that this order was erroneous, as the Florida Constitution prohibits incarceration for nonpayment of a debt. Florida Constitution, Art. I, § 11 (1968). Despite this constitutional prohibition, however, contempt proceedings may be used to enforce the payment of court-ordered alimony because of the public necessity that dependents be supported. Chapman v. Lamm, 388 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Gersten v. Gersten, 281 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). The trial court held a hearing at which testimony was taken and determined that the award sought to be enforced here arose out of a marital duty. Nothing in the record before this court contradicts that determination; and the order below is, accordingly, AFFIRMED.
McCORD, BOOTH and SHIVERS, JJ,, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Loury v. Loury, 431 So. 2d 701 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…. Because of the result reached in this case, it is not necessary for us to determine if the property in question was awarded to the appel-lee as a settlement of property rights or because of a marital duty of the husband to the wife. Cobb v. Cobb, 399 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).…
-
Pabian v. Pabian, 480 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985)…ents considered to be alimony or support, which are enforceable by contempt. 58 Fla. Bar Journal 67, The Contempt Dilemma: Support vs. Property and Third Party Debts. See also Zuccarello v. Zuccarello, 429 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Cobb v. Cobb, 399 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We believe that the husband’s obligation to pay the wife’s automobile payments is in the nature of support rather than a settlement of property rights because of the prominent role which an automobile plays in our everyday life.…
-
McCOMBES v. McCOMBES, 440 So. 2d 683 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983)…means “nourishment” and “sustenance.” Fort v. Fort, 90 So. 2d 313, 315 (Fla.1956). Because of public necessity that dependents be supported, the contempt power of the court may be used in this sense only to enforce payment of alimony. Cobb v. Cobb, 399 So. 2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The husband’s agreement to pay a lump sum in periodic payments in exchange for the wife’s relinquishment of valuable property rights such as support alimony are usually treated as a property settlement even though called “alimon…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Chapman v. Lamm, 388 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- Gersten v. Gersten, 281 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)