Case Name: Ronald L. BONGIORNO, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Amy P. YULE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 2006-02-17
Citations: 920 So. 2d 1209
Docket Number: Nos. 1D04-3887, 1D05-1119, 1D05-2736
Parties: Ronald L. BONGIORNO, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Amy P. YULE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Judges: THOMAS, J., concurs; WOLF, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with written opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 920
Pages: 1209–1212

Head Matter:
Ronald L. BONGIORNO, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Amy P. YULE, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
Nos. 1D04-3887, 1D05-1119, 1D05-2736.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Feb. 17, 2006.
Anthony C. Bisordi, of Bisordi & Bisor-di, P.A., Shalimar, for appellant/cross-ap-pellee.
Michael T. Webster, Shalimar, for appel-lee/cross-appellant.

Opinion:
HAWKES, J.
These three cases involve an appeal and cross-appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and appeals from two post-dissolution orders enforcing the terms of the dissolution judgment. We consolidate these cases, and affirm the dissolution judgment in its entirety without further discussion. We also affirm the trial court's order holding Former Husband in contempt for failing to pay Former Wife's lump sum alimony, and sentencing him to 40 days in jail. We write only to clarify why the lump sum alimony awarded here is enforceable by contempt.
It is well established that an award of lump sum alimony that effects a distribution of marital property is not enforceable by contempt. See e.g., Owens v. Owens, 578 So.2d 444 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). However, lump sum alimony is enforceable by contempt if it was intended for support rather than property settlement. See Mattera v. Mattera, 629 So.2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994). The trial court's intent is dispositive, regardless of what the award is called. It is the substance, not the noun, that determines enforcement options. The fact that Former Wife's need for support was caused by Former Husband's refusal to comply with the equitable distribution award does not change the substance of the alimony award. Rather, it is only what necessitated the alimony award.
Here, the trial court effected an equitable distribution of property in its Final Judgment. That distribution is not before us. At that time, the court concluded there was no current need for alimony, but awarded $1.00, due to the possibility that alimony would become necessary in the future. The trial court's conclusion that alimony was not then necessary was based on its expectation that Former Wife would receive the court-ordered income from her interest in the marital ownership of SPC, a corporation formed during the marriage. Since all SPC funds flowed through Former Husband, the trial court recognized Former Husband had the ability to disrupt Former Wife's income steam. Obviously, if her income was disrupted, Former Wife would have a need for support (alimony).
Former Husband exercised his ability to disrupt Former Wife's income. Former Husband refused to allow any of the funds the court ordered in its equitable distribution to go to Former Wife. He also refused to deposit any of the funds earned through SPC (when he was ordered to deposit all of the funds from SPC) in the Circuit Court Registry. In fact, Former Husband has paid no money to Former Wife, despite having an ability to do so.
Confronted with Former Wife's need for support due to Former Husband's failure to provide any of the funds to which Former Wife was entitled, the trial court modified the alimony award and ordered lump sum alimony to be paid by a date certain. The record clearly establishes Former Wife's need and Former Husband's ability to pay. The court stated it modified the alimony award "to guarantee Wife's stream of support." This statement shows it intended the modified lump sum alimony as support.
Following entry of the order awarding lump sum alimony, Former Husband, again, refused to pay the alimony ordered by the court. Consequently, at a contempt hearing, the trial court held Former Husband in contempt and ordered his incarceration unless he timely paid the purge amount. Considering Former Husband's consistent refusal to pay Former Wife any funds pursuant to either order, Former Wife's need, and Former Husband's ability to pay, we cannot find the trial court abused its discretion by holding Former Husband in contempt. Former Husband refused to comply with court orders, denied Former Wife the income to which she was entitled, and now attempts to hide behind the argument that the court's award of support alimony must be consid ered equitable distribution. Former Husband's effort is in vain.
The order of contempt is AFFIRMED. The case is REMANDED to the trial court for enforcement. No motion for rehearing will be entertained. The Clerk of the First District Court of Appeal is directed to immediately issue the mandate.
THOMAS, J., concurs; WOLF, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with written opinion.
. Obviously, the award of lump sum alimony does not off-set any equitable distribution Former Husband owes Former Wife.