### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

KEITH WILLIAMS
, Appellant,

v.

PENELOPE WILLIAMS
, Appellee

.

No. 4D 17

- 2834

[July 11, 2018 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Edward A. Garrison, Judge; L.T. Case No.

502014DR003451XXXXMB

.

Abigail Beebe of The Law Office of Abigail Beebe, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Da niel J. Koleos of Koleos Rosen berg McMahon P.L., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.

F ORST

, J.

Appellant Keith Williams appeals from the den ial of his motion for

e nforcement and sanctions as to Appellee Penelope Williams’ s failure to comply with a provision of their marital settlement agreement

. Although

the trial court found that Appellee had breached this provision

, it denied

the motion for enforcement based on its misunderstanding that it could not compel Appellee to comply with the term at issue

. Accordingly, w e

reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Background

The parties’ marriage of twenty

- five years was dissolved by a final judgment of dissolution which incorporated their marital settlement
agreement. The relevant, contested provision of the agreement is found in paragraph 8, which discusses the equitable distribution of the mar i t al home, and provides in pertinent part that “[o]n or before June 1, 2017, the

Wife shall make all reasonable efforts to refinance this real property

. .

. . ” (emphasis added).2 In June of 2017, Appellant filed a motion to enforce Appellee ’s compliance with paragraph 8, arguing that she had not made “all

reasonable efforts ” to refinance prior to the June 1 st deadline . At the hearing on the motion, Appellee acknowledg ed that she never applied to

refinance the marital home. The trial court found that she “made no effort whatsoever to refinance,” thus breaching paragraph 8

. However, the court stated that it did not have the authority to compel Appellee ’s performance

—

“ as equitable distribution, the law is clear that that’s not enforceable by

conte mpt ”

— and the motion to enforce was denied.

Analysis

A marital settlement agreement is to be interpreted and is construed

under a de novo review. Reilly v. Reilly , 94 So. 3d 693, 696 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012). Florida law favors the settlement of family law disputes and courts will enforce them when possible. Spiegel v. H. Allen Holmes, Inc. , 834 S o. 2d 295, 297 (Fla. 4th DCA 2002)

.

When a court enters final judgment of dissolution and incorporates a marriage settlement agreement by reference, the court retains jurisdiction

to enforce the terms of the final judgment and settlement as necessary. Paulucci v. Gen. Dynamics Corp. , 842 So. 2d 797, 803 (Fla. 2003)

. Florida Family Law Rule 12.570 sets forth various methods to enfor ce a judgment

, including compelling performance of a specific act

. Id. This rule is limited by the Florida Constitution’s prohibition on jailing debtors. Art. I, § 11

, Fla. Const. ; see also Riley v. Riley , 509 So. 2d 1366, 1369 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (“[C]o ntempt power is limited by [Florida’s Constitution] and other traditional limitations on the use of contempt powers where there are alternative adequate legal remedies.” (footnote omitted))

.

Equitable distribution of marital property is generally considered a debt

owed to a former spouse with any payments being enforceable only as ordinary claims between a creditor and a debtor. See Simpson v. Simpson

, 68 So. 3d 958, 961 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011); Burke v. Burke , 336 So. 2d 1237, 1238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)

. However, when equitable distribution requires the performance of an act, and not the payment of money, the trial court can enforce the provision through contempt without running afoul of our

constitution. See Burke , 336 So. 2d at 1238 ( affirming a portion of the

trial court ’s contempt order whe re the former husband failed to execute

and deliver certain documents which wo uld release the former wife’s interest in a note and mortgage and transfer certain securities to the

former wife

— acts not involving the payment of money); Roth v. Roth , 973 So. 2d 580, 592 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008) ( similar) ; Riley

, 509 So. 2d at 1369 (affirming contempt order premised on former husband’s failure to3 designate his former wife as the primary beneficiary of a life insurance policy, as required by the property settlement agreement)

.

Turning to the insta nt case, paragraph 8 required Appellee to make

reasonable efforts to refinance the real property. She did not. As in the cases cited in the preceding paragraph

, there was an agreement by one of the parties to perform an act. This agreement can and should be enforced
pursuant to Florida Family Law Rule 12.570(c). 1

T he trial court correctly found that Appellee breach ed the parties’
agreement . The court , however, erred in failing to further determine

whether Appellee ’s failure to comply was willful and deliberate and not

caused by an inability to comply. If the trial court on remand determines

that Appellee’s failure was voluntary , then the trial c ourt will be obligated

to issue an order compel ling Appellee to perform in accordance with the “reasonable efforts” provision set forth in paragraph 8

. See Burke , 336 So.

2d at 1238 ; Roth , 973 So. 2d at 592

.

Conclusion

W e reverse the trial court ’s denial of Appellant ’s motion to enforce because paragraph 8 stated that Appellee “shall” do a specific act, she failed to do so, and the trial court had the power to enforce her compliance. Accordingly, we revers e and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Reversed and remanded

.

D AMOORGIAN and K LINGENSMITH

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

1 Any argument that performance could not be compelled because the time to perform had laps ed is re jected because performing by June 1, 2017 was not material. See Command Sec. Corp. v. Moffa , 84 So. 3d 1097, 1100 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (naming a date upon which an act should be performed does not in and of itself result in establishing

that time is of the essence or an essential part of the agreement).