Halpern v. Halpern

436 So. 2d 366, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22573
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided August 16, 1983·No. No. 83-163·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

BASKIN, Judge.

In accordance with our concern for the substance rather than the form of payments made pursuant to a dissolution decree, regardless of the label of “property settlement” or “alimony”; and in recognition that the name assigned may not be conclusive of the question of the character of the obligation, see Underwood v. Underwood, 64 So.2d 281 (Fla.1953); Fagan v. Lewis, [367] 374 So.2d 18 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), we hold that the sums referred to in paragraph 3 of the order portion of the Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage dated May 23,1980, constituted alimony obligations enforceable by contempt and not a property settlement. Accordingly, we reverse and remand the cause to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing on the wife’s motion for contempt.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Halpern v. Halpern, 436 So. 2d 366, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22573 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

436 So. 2d 366 (Halpern v. Halpern) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Winset v. Fine
565 So. 2d 794 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1990)
Scharf v. Smith
498 So. 2d 686 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1986)
Pabian v. Pabian
480 So. 2d 237 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)