Spector v. Spector
2017 Fla. App. LEXIS 7547
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- 1996 dissolution incorporated a post-nuptial agreement: Husband to pay $5,000/month alimony until death or remarriage, quitclaim the marital home to Wife, and maintain $750,000 life insurance for her benefit.
- Husband stopped paying; court found him in civil contempt, fixed arrears, ordered a purge payment and awarded $100,000 in attorney’s fees; bankruptcy court refused discharge of the alimony arrears and recorded a lien.
- After remarriage, Husband transferred the residence by quitclaim to himself and his new wife (tenants-in-common) and later transferred title in a $200,000 life insurance policy to the new wife, who borrowed against it; testimony indicated the transfers were intended to shield assets from the former wife.
- Former Wife moved for proceedings supplementary and impleaded the new wife and the insurer; the trial court held the homestead and insurance exemptions protected the assets before transfer and therefore the transfers could not be fraudulent as a matter of law.
- The Fourth DCA reversed, holding the trial court erred in concluding the exemptions rendered the assets unreachable as a matter of law and remanded for findings on whether Husband acted egregiously, reprehensibly, or fraudulently to justify enforced sale.
- On rehearing, the court denied the Former Wife’s request for appellate attorney’s fees (because she sought fees against the new spouse rather than the judgment debtor) and denied appellate costs without prejudice to present them to the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Former Wife's Argument | New Wife/Husband's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether homestead and statutory insurance exemptions bar proceedings supplementary as a matter of law even if transfers were made to defeat alimony | Exemptions should not shield assets used as instruments of fraud to defeat alimony claims | Exemptions applied before transfer make the transfers ineffective to reach assets; thus no fraud as a matter of law | Reversed trial court; exemptions are not absolute—remand to determine fraud/egregious conduct before ordering forced sale |
| Whether the transfers here were fraudulent and justify piercing exemptions to satisfy alimony contempt remedies | Transfers were made to defeat Wife’s claims (testimony supports intent to shield assets) | Transfers were protected by exemption so not fraudulent as matter of law | Court declined to decide fraud on appeal; remanded for trial court factfinding on egregious/reprehensible/fraudulent conduct |
| Whether appellate attorney’s fees may be awarded against the new spouse under §61.16 | Former Wife sought fees and costs taxed against the new spouse | New spouse not liable; fees under §61.16 are against a former spouse (judgment debtor) | Motion for appellate attorney’s fees denied—fees cannot be awarded against third-party new spouse |
| Whether appellate costs should be taxed in favor of prevailing party in this court | Prevailing party entitled to appellate costs under Fla. R. App. P. 9.400(a) | Costs rule governs costs but not attorney’s fees; appellate court may deny without prejudice | Costs denied without prejudice to renew in circuit court; Rule 9.400(a) governs costs only |
Key Cases Cited
- Partridge v. Partridge, 912 So.2d 649 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (homestead exemption may be lost where former spouse acted egregiously or fraudulently)
- Anderson v. Anderson, 44 So.2d 652 (Fla. 1950) (homestead exemption cannot be used to defeat support obligations)
- Siegel v. Siegel, 700 So.2d 414 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (retirement/IRA not an untouchable haven to avoid contempt purge payments)
- Gepfrich v. Gepfrich, 582 So.2d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (refusing homestead protection where it was used to escape debt to former spouse)
- Pasco v. Harley, 75 So. 30 (Fla. 1917) (homestead laws should not become instruments of fraud)
- Drucker v. Rosenstein, 19 Fla. 191 (Fla. 1882) (homestead protections must not be applied to perpetrate fraud)