Halpern v. Halpern

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Decided August 16, 1983

District Court of Appeal of Florida · decided 1983-08-16

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently July 1990

3 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“the name assigned may not be conclusive of the question of the character of the obligation.”

quoted by 1 later decision, including 480 So. 2d 237 - Pabian v. Pabian

Relies on 64 So. 2d 281 - Underwood v. Underwood · Smith v. Smith

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1983-08-16

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

BASKIN, Judge.

¶1In 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, *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.