From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Planes v. Planes

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 17, 1985
468 So. 2d 366 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Opinion

Nos. 84-2055, 84-2056 and 84-2460.

April 16, 1985. Rehearing Denied May 17, 1985.

Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Murray Goldman, J.

Greene Cooper and Sharon L. Wolfe, Miami, for appellant.

Robert L. Koeppel, Miami, for appellee.

Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and BARKDULL and JORGENSON, JJ.


The appellant was held in contempt for his failure to make a $50,000 payment due December 31, 1982 under a "property settlement" agreement with his ex-wife. The issues presented which concern the availability of contempt to enforce this obligation, compare Salomon v. Salomon, 196 So.2d 111 (Fla. 1967) with Zuccarello v. Zuccarello, 429 So.2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), and the technical sufficiency of the orders below, see Hammond v. Sandstrom, 376 So.2d 466 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979), have been completely mooted both by the fact that Planes has posted a supersedeas bond, which — the appellant concedes — assures payment of the underlying obligation without reference to the contempt power and by Ms. Planes's specific waiver, in the light of her ability to resort to the bond, of any interest in enforcing the orders for payment by requiring Planes's imprisonment.

As to the merits of the order for the payment of $50,000, the only question now before us, we find no error with the exception of the trial court's failure to reduce the amount due by $14,201.80. That figure represents the total of several checks made payable by Mr. Planes to Ms. Planes which bore the legend "for: advancement on payment of monies due on December 31, 1982 per marital settlement agreement dated October 15, 1980." Having cashed these checks, Ms. Planes may not now claim that they are not to be applied to reduce the designated obligation. Henry v. Halifax Hospital District, 368 So.2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); see Pino v. Lopez, 361 So.2d 192 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978), cert. dismissed, 365 So.2d 714 (Fla. 1978). Accordingly, the orders under review are affirmed as modified by reducing the $50,000 obligation to $35,798.20, plus interest from December 31, 1982.

We do not include in this group a $1,485.97 check on which this language was substituted in Mr. Planes's handwriting at an unknown time for the typewritten statement, "Reimbursement for car repairs at Sun Chevrolet," which was crossed out.

Affirmed as modified.


Summaries of

Planes v. Planes

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District
May 17, 1985
468 So. 2d 366 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
Case details for

Planes v. Planes

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM PETER PLANES, APPELLANT, v. MARIANTHI PLANES, A/K/A MARIANNE…

Court:District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District

Date published: May 17, 1985

Citations

468 So. 2d 366 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing Cases

Mantici v. Mantici

PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Planes v. Planes, 468 So.2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985).…

CARRIER v. AMOR

Affirmed. See Planes v. Planes, 468 So.2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); Helman v. Seaboard Coast Line R.R., 349…