From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lee v. Lee

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Apr 29, 1998
710 So. 2d 186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Summary

holding mortgage obligation was enforceable by contempt because in that case, the requirement "was a portion and integral part of [husband's] duty to contribute to the support of the child"

Summary of this case from Schroll v. Schroll

Opinion

No. 97-3817

Opinion filed April 29, 1998.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Suwannee County Paul S. Bryan, Judge.

Cary A. Hardee, II, Madison, for Appellant.

George T. Reeves, Madison, for Appellee.


Kenneth Lee appeals an order of the trial judge finding him in contempt for failure to pay his court-ordered-half of the mortgage payments on the former domicile of the parties. We affirm.

His other claim does not warrant discussion.

If an order to pay all or a portion of a mortgage payment is solely in the nature of a property settlement, it is not enforceable by contempt. See Hobbs v. Hobbs, 518 So.2d 439 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Marks v. Marks, 457 So.2d 1137 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Ball v. Ball, 440 So.2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983). In Ball, this court determined that it was necessary to look at the circumstances of the particular debt under consideration, as well as the specific provisions of the judgement itself, in order to determine if the obligation is one for alimony or family support.

The parties in this action have two children. The husband was granted custody of the older, the wife the younger. The younger child is physically handicapped and has special needs. This was a factor in granting the wife possession of the home. The husband was ordered to pay fifty dollars per week child support. In setting this amount, the court observed that the husband was required to pay half of the mortgage payments on the home and that the child was receiving social security disability. The trial judge determined, and we agree, that the requirement to pay one-half of the mortgage payments was a portion and integral part of his duty to contribute to the support of the child. These facts distinguish the circumstances existing in Hobbs, Marks, andBall.

AFFIRMED.

MICKLE and DAVIS, JJ., and McDONALD, PARKER LEE, Senior Judge, concur.


Summaries of

Lee v. Lee

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District
Apr 29, 1998
710 So. 2d 186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

holding mortgage obligation was enforceable by contempt because in that case, the requirement "was a portion and integral part of [husband's] duty to contribute to the support of the child"

Summary of this case from Schroll v. Schroll

noting that it is "necessary to look at the circumstances of the particular debt under consideration, as well as the specific provisions of the judgment itself, in order to determine if the obligation is one for alimony or family support"

Summary of this case from Schroll v. Schroll
Case details for

Lee v. Lee

Case Details

Full title:KENNETH MARVIN LEE, Appellant, v. VICKIE K. LEE, Appellee

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District

Date published: Apr 29, 1998

Citations

710 So. 2d 186 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1998)

Citing Cases

Schroll v. Schroll

" Taylor v. Taylor , 653 So.2d 1126, 1127 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). There is an exception for child support or…

Kea v. Kea

We reverse, and hold that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the former wife's motion for…