Summary
In Halpern, the Third District Court of Appeal, citing Underwood v. Underwood, 64 So.2d 281 (Fla. 1953) noted that, in examining obligations to see if contempt proceedings are permitted, "the name assigned may not be conclusive of the question of the character of the obligation."
Summary of this case from Pabian v. PabianOpinion
No. 83-163.
August 16, 1983.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Michael H. Salmon, J.
Young, Stern Tannenbaum and Glen Rafkin, North Miami Beach, for appellant.
Carol R. Gersten, Miami, for appellee.
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and NESBITT and BASKIN, JJ.
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, 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.