Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce

It is the general rule of Florida family law that support obligations can be enforced via the court’s contempt powers, while equitable distribution obligations cannot be enforced by contempt. So it is important that a marital settlement agreement or final judgment unambiguously specifies the nature of payments being made. This was an issue in the case Suarez v. Suarez, 3D20-611 (Fla. 3d DCA March 3, 2021).

The parties were divorced by a final judgment entered in 2006. As part of their marital settlement agreement, the former husband agreed to pay the former wife lump sum alimony as her share of equitable distribution of the parties’ corporate interest. The specific provision of the agreement read “The Husband shall pay the Wife the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00) as Alimony. This money represents the Wife's claim of a half interest in the Ochosi Yoruba Church, Inc., which is the Husband's non-profit organization. The Husband will make to the Wife a lump sum payment of One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($150,000.00) on the day of the execution of this agreement and shall make monthly payments of Four Thousand One Hundred Sixty-Six Dollars with Sixty-Seven Cents ($4,166.67) for a period of three (3) years beginning on the 1st of October 2006 for the remaining balance of $150,000.00.”

In 2018, approximately ten years after the last alimony payment was due, the former wife filed a motion for contempt alleging the former husband failed to pay the alimony. The former husband responded with the defenses of laches and claimed the alimony provision could not be enforced via contempt because it was really a property settlement provision. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found the former husband in contempt, denied his laches defense, sentenced him to jail and ordered a purge payment in addition to payment of the remaining balance of the alimony due within 90 days. The former husband appealed. As part of the hearing, the trial court admitted, over the former husband’s objection, evidence of the intent of the parties with regard to the nature of the payments because the court found the agreement to be ambiguous as to the nature of the payments.

The appellate court noted this case turned on whether the payments could be considered alimony or a property distribution settlement. First, the appellate court found that the wording of the parties’ agreement was not ambiguous, and therefore it was error for the trial court to admit evidence of the parties’ intent surrounding the alimony provision of the agreement. The appellate court also concluded the payments were for property distribution and not alimony, holding “With these principles in mind, our review of the entire MSA reveals no ambiguity regarding the parties' intent for the Former Husband's $300,000 payment obligation: it was a non-modifiable, lump sum alimony payment to be paid in exchange for the Former Wife's interests in the Church, the home, the real property and the business. The sentence in the Alimony Provision immediately following the Former Husband's $300,000 obligation unequivocally states: ‘This money represents the Wife's claim of a half interest in the Ochosi Yoruba Church, Inc. which is the Husband's non-profit organization.”

Knowing how to draft your marital settlement agreement is important to avoid future costly litigation. Schedule a consultation with a Miami divorce lawyer to understand how the law may apply to your case.