Shaner v. Shaner

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Shaner v. Shaner

471 So. 2d 669, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1597, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15387

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedJune 27, 1985

DocketNo. 84-1781

StatusPublished

This text of 471 So. 2d 669 (Shaner v. Shaner) 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

Shaner v. Shaner, 471 So. 2d 669, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1597, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15387 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

COBB, Chief Judge.

This ease involves the validity of an order holding the appellant in contempt of court for failure to pay certain monthly obligations. The lower court found that these monthly payments, which were the appellant’s obligations under the terms of a property settlement agreement, were in the nature of alimony, rather than in the nature of a property right. The court con-[670]*670eluded that the appellant’s failure to make these payments was properly punishable by a contempt order.

We agree with the trial court’s finding that the monthly payments were alimony, based on ambiguities found in the property settlement agreement, and based on the appellant's failure to provide this court with a sufficient record to allow full review of this finding. The lower court made no finding that the appellant was able to pay the amounts due, however. This was error under Garo v. Garo, 347 So.2d 418 (Fla.1977). Accordingly, we quash the order and remand this cause to the trial court with directions to make the required finding, if supported by the record, or otherwise to vacate the order of contempt.

QUASHED and REMANDED.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and SHARP, JJ., concur.

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

COBB, Chief Judge.

This ease involves the validity of an order holding the appellant in contempt of court for failure to pay certain monthly obligations. The lower court found that these monthly payments, which were the appellant’s obligations under the terms of a property settlement agreement, were in the nature of alimony, rather than in the nature of a property right. The court con-[670]*670eluded that the appellant’s failure to make these payments was properly punishable by a contempt order.

We agree with the trial court’s finding that the monthly payments were alimony, based on ambiguities found in the property settlement agreement, and based on the appellant's failure to provide this court with a sufficient record to allow full review of this finding. The lower court made no finding that the appellant was able to pay the amounts due, however. This was error under Garo v. Garo, 347 So.2d 418 (Fla.1977). Accordingly, we quash the order and remand this cause to the trial court with directions to make the required finding, if supported by the record, or otherwise to vacate the order of contempt.

QUASHED and REMANDED.

FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr. and SHARP, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

471 So. 2d 669, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 1597, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 15387, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shaner-v-shaner-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack