Halpern v. Halpern

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Halpern v. Halpern

436 So. 2d 366, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22573

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 16, 1983

DocketNo. 83-163

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 436 So. 2d 366 (Halpern v. Halpern) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

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

Pincite

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]*367374 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

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]*367374 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

436 So. 2d 366, 1983 Fla. App. LEXIS 22573, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halpern-v-halpern-fladistctapp-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack