Wilbur, III v. Wilbur
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL, LAKELAND, FLORIDA May 16, 2008 WILLIAM L. WILBUR, III, Appellant, v. ROSALIE M. WILBUR, n/k/a ROSALIE M. MARTIN, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2D07-2996 BY ORDER OF THE COURT: Appellant's motion for rehearing, motion to supplement record, and request for written opinion is granted to the extent that the opinion dated January 4, 2008, is withdrawn, and the attached opinion is substituted therefor. The motion for rehearing is denied in all other respects. I HEREBY CERTIFY THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL COURT ORDER. JAMES BIRKHOLD, CLERK NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT WILLIAM L. WILBUR, III, Appellant, v. ROSALIE M. WILBUR, n/k/a ROSALIE M. MARTIN, Appellee. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 2D07-2996 Opinion filed May 16, 2008. Appeal from nonfinal order of the Circuit Court for Pinellas County; Cynthia J. Newton, Judge. Douglas M. Buchwalter, Clearwater, for Appellant. William A. Borja, Clearwater, for Appellee. ALTENBERND, Judge. William Wilbur appeals an order in a postdissolution proceeding that holds him in civil contempt for willful failure to pay support payments to his former wife, Rosalie M. Martin. We affirm the trial court s finding that Mr. Wilbur owed Ms. Martin $61,806.80 at the time the contempt order was entered and that he owned real estate with sufficient accessible equity to give him the ability to pay this amount as a purge. Under the circumstances presented, the undisputed fact that the real estate from which he might obtain an equity loan to satisfy his obligation is homestead does not protect Mr. Wilbur as a matter of law from this obligation. See Gepfrich v. Gepfrich, 582 So. 2d 743 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991).1 To the extent Mr. Wilbur expresses concern on appeal that he may be unable to procure such a loan despite his best efforts, we note that the order on appeal contains the language required by Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615(e). If a writ of bodily attachment were to issue based upon Mr. Wilbur s failure to pay the purge, it would require a hearing within forty-eight hours at which evidence in this regard could be presented.2 Affirmed. STRINGER and DAVIS, JJ., Concur. 1 Notably, the current order does not place a lien on the property nor require a forced sale; it simply recognizes that the equity in the homestead, equity Mr. Wilbur has tapped into for other reasons, provides evidence of his ability to pay his support obligation to his former wife. 2 There is no doubt that even in the absence of a home equity loan, Mr. Wilbur has some ability to make payments on his outstanding obligation. It may therefore behoove Mr. Wilbur to make good faith payments on the amount due while attempting to obtain the larger purge amount something Mr. Wilbur has resisted doing since 2003 when the obligation was declared nondischargeable. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
