A 2025 decision from the Florida Second District Court of Appeal (2DCA), Said v. Bell, has provided a critical and timely reminder of the absolute limits of a court’s power to enforce a final judgment. The case, which is binding precedent for all divorce courts in Tampa and Hillsborough County, addresses a common and costly question: What happens when your ex-spouse refuses to pay a large property settlement? The answer, as the court clarified, exposes a fundamental split in how divorce obligations are treated, and why the remedy of “contempt” is not the all-powerful tool many believe it to be.
The case involved a Former Husband who failed to comply with two major financial obligations in the parties’ Marital Settlement Agreement: he failed to assume responsibility for the mortgage on the marital home, and he failed to pay the Former Wife a $165,000 lump sum equalizing payment. The trial court held him in contempt for both failures. The 2DCA affirmed the contempt finding for the mortgage, but reversed the contempt finding for the $165,000 payment. The court’s reasoning goes to the very heart of Florida’s constitution and underscores the two, very different paths for enforcing a final judgment.
The Two Types of Awards: A Bright Line in the Law
Florida law makes a clear and rigid distinction between two types of financial awards in a divorce: support awards and equitable distribution awards. The remedy for non-payment of one is vastly different from the other.
- Support Awards: This category includes alimony (spousal support) and child support. These payments are considered a “duty” rather than a “debt.” They are based on one party’s need and the other’s ability to pay, and are seen as a continuation of the legal and moral obligation to support one’s family.
- Equitable Distribution Awards: This category involves the division of property. It includes the allocation of bank accounts, retirement funds, real estate, and, as in the Said case, “equalizing payments.” An equalizing payment is a sum of money one spouse is ordered to pay the other to make the overall division of property fair and equal.
The Said v. Bell case reaffirmed that the legal tools used to enforce these two types of awards are not interchangeable. A party’s failure to pay support can be enforced with the court’s most powerful “hammer”: the power of contempt. A party’s failure to pay a property settlement cannot.
The Power of Contempt: The “Support” Hammer
In Florida, civil contempt is the primary tool a Tampa divorce lawyer will use to enforce an order for alimony or child support. It is a powerful, coercive remedy with one ultimate threat: incarceration.
What is Civil Contempt?
It is crucial to understand that civil contempt is not intended to be punitive. It is not a criminal proceeding designed to “punish” someone for a past bad act. Rather, it is a coercive proceeding designed to force a person to do something they are refusing to do.
When a former spouse files a motion for civil contempt, they are asking the court to find that the non-paying party (the “payor”) is in willful violation of a clear court order. To win, the moving party must establish two simple facts:
- A prior, clear, unambiguous court order exists that directs the payor to pay (e.g., “The Former Husband shall pay $1,000 per month in alimony”).
- The payor has failed to comply with that order, in full or in part.
Once these two facts are proven, the legal burden shifts entirely to the payor. The court will presume the non-payment was “willful.” To defend themselves, the payor must prove that their failure to pay was not willful.
The only true defense against civil contempt is a proven inability to pay. The payor must show, with clear and convincing evidence, that they simply did not have the money and that this lack of funds was not their fault (e.g., they suffered an involuntary job loss, a medical crisis, etc.). Simply choosing to pay other creditors, like a credit card bill or a new boat loan, instead of the court-ordered support is the very definition of a “willful” failure.
The “Keys to the Jail” and the Purge
If the court finds the payor in civil contempt, it will create a path for them to “purge” themselves of that contempt. The judge will make a finding that the payor does have the present ability to pay something. This “something” is the “purge amount.”
The court’s final order will typically state that the payor is found in contempt and shall be incarcerated unless they pay the purge amount by a specific date. This is famously known as giving the contemnor the “keys to their own jail cell.” They are not serving a “sentence.” They are being held until they “choose” to comply with the court’s order.
This powerful and coercive tool is considered a necessary part of family law because of the state’s profound public policy interest in ensuring that spouses and children are financially supported.
The Constitutional Limit: Why You Cannot Be Jailed for “Debt”
The Said v. Bell case focused on the other side of the coin: the $165,000 equalizing payment. The Former Wife, understandably, wanted to use the “hammer” of contempt to get this money. The trial court agreed, but the 2DCA, as the binding appellate court for Tampa, said no.
The reason is one of the oldest and most fundamental protections in Florida’s constitution: Article I, Section 11 prohibits imprisonment for debt.
A “debtors’ prison” is unconstitutional. The Said court, like many before it, held that an equitable distribution award—even one as large as $165,000—is a debt. It is not “support.” It is a property settlement, creating a simple creditor-debtor relationship, just as if the Former Husband had failed to pay a credit card bill or a business loan.
Because it is a “debt” and not “support,” the court’s most powerful tool—the threat of incarceration through contempt—is explicitly off the table. Holding the Former Husband in contempt for failing to pay this “debt” was a direct violation of his constitutional rights.
This is a critical, and often frustrating, lesson for clients. The $1,000-per-month alimony payment has more enforcement power behind it than the $165,000 property payment. This is why the advice of a skilled Tampa divorce lawyer during the drafting of an agreement is so critical.
If Not Contempt, Then What? The “Creditor” Hammer
The appellate court’s reversal did not mean the Former Wife would never get her $165,000. It only meant she was using the wrong tool. The court pointed out that she is not without a remedy; she simply has to use the same remedies any other creditor in Florida would use.
A Tampa divorce lawyer must now pivot from a “contempt” strategy to a “collections” strategy. The final judgment is, in effect, a civil judgment for money. The Former Wife’s legal team can now use the “creditor’s toolkit” to collect that debt.
This toolkit includes several powerful, if less direct, legal weapons:
- Judgment Lien: The first step is often to record a certified copy of the final judgment in the public records of any county where the Former Husband owns property (like Hillsborough County). This automatically creates a “judgment lien” that attaches to any real estate he owns or may own in the future. He will not be able to sell or refinance that property without paying off her $165,000 lien.
- Writ of Execution: A Tampa divorce lawyer can have the clerk of court issue a “writ of execution.” This writ is given to the local sheriff, who is then empowered to execute the judgment. This can mean “levying” on the Former Husband’s property—seizing assets like bank accounts, non-homestead real estate, or valuable personal property (like a boat or expensive art) and selling them at a public auction to satisfy the debt.
- Writ of Garnishment: This is one of the most effective tools. A writ of garnishment can be served on any third party who holds money for the Former Husband. This is most commonly served on a bank (to freeze and seize the funds in his bank account) or his employer (to garnish his wages, subject to Florida’s “head of household” exemption).
While these remedies may seem more complex and slower than a contempt hearing, they are powerful and effective. The Said decision is a firm reminder that for property settlements, this is the only legally permissible path.
Why Was the Mortgage Contempt Upheld? A Critical Distinction
The most nuanced part of the Said decision is that the 2DCA affirmed the contempt finding for the mortgage. At first, this seems contradictory. Isn’t a mortgage payment a “debt”?
Yes, but this is where family law is so complex. The Said court did not explain its reasoning for affirming this part (it was “affirmed without comment”), but legal precedent gives us a clear answer. The order to “assume responsibility for the mortgage” was likely not seen as a simple order to pay money.
Instead, it was likely seen as an order to perform a specific act—the act of refinancing the loan to get the Former Wife’s name off of it, or the act of making the payments in order to protect the Former Wife’s credit and preserve the marital asset from foreclosure.
This is a critical distinction a Tampa divorce lawyer must understand.
- Failure to Pay a Debt: “You must pay the Wife $165,000.” This is a debt. No contempt.
- Failure to Perform an Act: “You must sign the deed to sell the house,” or “You must remove the Wife’s name from the mortgage,” or “You must maintain the mortgage payments to prevent foreclosure and protect the Wife’s credit.” A willful failure to perform these acts is a direct, contemptible violation of the court’s order.
The court was not jailing the Former Husband for the debt owed to the bank; it was holding him in contempt for his willful refusal to follow the court’s order to protect his ex-spouse.
The Ultimate Lesson: Secure Your Settlement Before the Divorce is Final
The Said v. Bell case is a powerful, and expensive, lesson in the difference between a “right” and a “remedy.” The Former Wife had a right to the $165,000, but she found out that her remedy was far more limited and difficult than she thought.
This entire situation could have been avoided with strategic drafting in the original Marital Settlement Agreement. An experienced Tampa divorce lawyer does not just “get” you the equalizing payment; they secure it.
Instead of just a promise to pay, a skilled Tampa divorce lawyer will insist on security.
- Secured Promissory Note: The agreement would require the Former Husband to sign a promissory note for the $165,000.
- Mortgage/Lien: That note would be secured by a new, private mortgage or lien against the marital home (or another one of his properties).
- Deed in Lieu of Foreclosure: The agreement might even require him to sign a “deed in lieu” that is held in escrow. If he defaults on the payment, the deed is automatically recorded, and the Wife takes the property.
With these tools, the Former Wife would not be an unsecured creditor chasing a debt. She would be a secured creditor with the power to foreclose on a specific asset. This is a position of power that is infinitely stronger than having to file for garnishments or levies years after the fact.
This case, which is now the binding law in Tampa, is a clear warning: do not rely on the goodwill of your ex-spouse or the threat of contempt to collect a property settlement. The power of a Tampa divorce lawyer is in their ability to protect you from this exact scenario, ensuring your financial award is not just a “promise” on paper, but a secured, collectible asset.
The enforcement of a final judgment is one of the most technical and challenging areas of family law. The rules are rigid, and a misunderstanding of the law can lead to wasted time, thousands in legal fees, and even a violation of constitutional rights. If you are in the Tampa or Hillsborough County area and are either owed money from a divorce or are facing an enforcement action, you need an attorney who understands these critical distinctions. Contact our office for a consultation to review your judgment and discuss your legal options.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
What is an equalizing payment in a Florida divorce? An equalizing payment is a single, lump-sum payment (or series of payments) from one spouse to the other, designed to make the overall division of property and assets “equitable” or fair.
Can I have my ex-spouse jailed for not paying me my property settlement? No. The Said v. Bell case reaffirms that an equitable distribution payment is a “debt.” Under the Florida Constitution, you cannot be imprisoned for failing to pay a debt.
What is the difference between contempt for child support and for a property settlement? Child support and alimony are a “duty.” Failure to pay them is enforceable by civil contempt, which carries the threat of jail. A property settlement is a “debt.” It is not enforceable by contempt; you must use standard creditor remedies like garnishment or liens.
What is a “creditor remedy”? This is the legal toolkit a creditor uses to collect a debt. It includes filing a judgment lien on real estate, getting a writ of execution to seize assets (like bank accounts), or obtaining a writ of garnishment to take money from a paycheck or bank.
Why was the contempt for the mortgage payment in Said v. Bell allowed? The court likely viewed the order to handle the mortgage not as a simple “debt,” but as an order to perform a specific act (e.g., to protect the wife’s credit or prevent foreclosure). A willful failure to perform an act ordered by the court is enforceable by contempt.
The McKinney Law Group: Tampa Divorce Lawyers Focused on Long-Term Stability
We help Tampa clients move through divorce with confidence by creating legal solutions that protect their financial health and their relationships with their children.
Call 813-428-3400 or email [email protected] to get started.