CLAIRE RICE KUCHERA v. JAY KUCHERA
230 So. 3d 135
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Parties executed a 1992 post‑conciliation marital settlement agreement (MSA) that provided lump‑sum alimony comprising transferred accounts and one‑half of husband’s salary for ten years after dissolution.
- Wife filed for dissolution in 2003; a 2006 final judgment awarded permanent periodic alimony, but after appeals the case was retried and the Third Amended Final Judgment on remand held the MSA valid and awarded lump‑sum alimony instead.
- The Third Amended Final Judgment interpreted the MSA but failed to specify the precise arrearage amounts attributable to one‑half of husband’s salary for 2006–2009.
- Wife later moved for contempt seeking determination and enforcement of lump‑sum arrearages for 2008–2011; husband argued res judicata, lack of jurisdiction, waiver, and laches.
- The trial court denied relief as to 2008–2009, finding the omission should have been raised on rehearing or appeal, and concluded wife waived the issue; it found arrears for 2010–2011 totaling $202,177.50 but set repayment at $3,000/month and denied prejudgment interest.
- On appeal the Fourth District affirmed denial as to 2008–2009 (on waiver/preservation grounds) but held the trial court erred by refusing prejudgment interest on the 2010–2011 arrearage and remanded to award interest.
Issues
| Issue | Wife's Argument | Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court could determine lump‑sum alimony arrearages for 2008–2009 | Third Amended Final Judgment omitted amounts; court retains jurisdiction to decide arrears | Omission was litigated; wife failed to raise omission on rehearing or appeal → waived; res judicata/waiver/laches bar relief | Affirmed: court properly denied determination as to 2008–2009 based on waiver/preservation (trial court had jurisdiction but wife failed to preserve issue) |
| Whether contempt/adjudication was proper for 2010–2011 payments | Wife sought contempt and full arrearage enforcement | Husband argued amounts followed judgment and defenses (waiver, laches) | Trial court found specific arrearage for 2010–2011 ($202,177.50) and denied contempt because husband paid per its view; appellate court affirmed payment schedule ruling without further comment |
| Whether trial court abused discretion setting $3,000/month repayment | Wife objected to low monthly payment | Husband argued equitable repayment due to his finances | Fourth District affirmed trial court’s repayment amount (no change) |
| Whether prejudgment interest must be awarded on established arrearage | Interest is mandatory once a debt exists; denial was error | Trial court relied on equitable factors to deny interest; husband argued no formal arrearage judgment | Reversed: prejudgment interest must be awarded on the 2010–2011 arrearage; remanded to calculate and award interest |
Key Cases Cited
- Galstyan v. Galstyan, 85 So. 3d 561 (discussing review of support arrearage rulings)
- Farghali v. Farghali, 187 So. 3d 338 (party must raise omission in findings by motion for rehearing)
- Florida Department of Transportation v. Juliano, 801 So. 2d 101 (failure to raise issue on appeal can effectuate waiver)
- Conway v. Conway, 111 So. 3d 925 (prejudgment interest on support arrearages reviewed de novo; failure to award interest warrants reversal)
- Argonaut Insurance Co. v. May Plumbing Co., 474 So. 2d 212 (interest accrues as a matter of law once a debt has ensued)