Findley v. Findley

1 Bruce A. Findley did not make a timely property division payment of $162,500, in accordance with the divorce judgment. His former wife, Ellen V. Gibbons, brought an order to show cause why he should not be held in contempt, but the family court found that his once lucrative business had gone belly-up through no fault of his own, that he did not have the ability to pay and that the circumstances did not show a willful intent to avoid payment. Gibbons appeals, arguing that, instead of pouring funds into the business in an attempt to keep the business afloat, Findley should have thought about his former wife first, should have closed the business down while he still had the assets, and his failure to do so was "unreasonable" and amounted to "shirking." But Gibbons is wrong on the law. This is not a case governed by the shirking analysis that takes place in support and maintenance cases. This is a property division case and the touchstone questions are whether there was ability to pay and whether nonpayment was willful with intent to avoid payment. We uphold the family courts determinations.