02 May Equitable Distribution Enforcement in Florida: When Contempt Applies
Summary
Florida courts generally treat equitable distribution payment obligations as debts under Article I, section 11 of the Florida Constitution, which means contempt is unavailable and the obligee must rely on creditor remedies such as execution and garnishment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.570. A narrow exception permits contempt to compel performance of a specific act required by the dissolution judgment, such as signing a deed, promissory note, or mortgage to secure equitable distribution obligations.
This article explains, in detail, how equitable distribution enforcement in Florida actually works. It covers the constitutional foundation that prohibits imprisonment for debt, the general rule that property settlement payments are enforced like any other money judgment, the narrow but important exception that allows contempt to compel performance of a specific act, and the procedural safeguards that govern any civil contempt proceeding. The discussion draws on the leading appellate authorities, the relevant Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Florida Family Law Rules of Procedure that frame post-judgment enforcement litigation in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit and across South Florida.
The Constitutional Foundation Behind Equitable Distribution Enforcement Florida Courts Recognize
To understand why equitable distribution enforcement in Florida is structured the way it is, the analysis must begin with Article I, section 11 of the Florida Constitution. That provision flatly forbids imprisonment for debt, and it has been read for more than a century to mean that civil contempt cannot be used to coerce payment of a purely monetary obligation. Florida appellate courts have grounded their treatment of property settlement obligations in this constitutional limit. As the Fourth District Court of Appeal explained in Williams v. Williams, 251 So. 3d 926, the trial court does retain jurisdiction to enforce a final judgment that incorporates a marital settlement agreement, but the methods of enforcement available under Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.570 are constrained by the constitutional bar on jailing debtors.
Consequently, the constitutional framework forces a careful distinction between two categories of obligations that often appear side by side in the same dissolution judgment. Support obligations, which are designed to provide for the maintenance of a former spouse or a minor child, fall outside the constitutional prohibition because they are not treated as ordinary debts. Equitable distribution obligations, by contrast, are essentially settlements of property rights between former spouses, and they are treated as debts for purposes of the imprisonment-for-debt analysis. As a result, the same court that can incarcerate a former spouse for failing to pay alimony cannot, in most cases, incarcerate that same person for failing to make an equalizing payment owed under the property division portion of the same judgment.
Notably, the constitutional framework does not leave the obligee spouse without remedies. It simply channels enforcement of property settlement debts into the same toolkit that any judgment creditor uses against any judgment debtor. That redirection is the heart of equitable distribution enforcement Florida practitioners must master, because the procedural posture of a creditor remedy is very different from the procedural posture of a contempt motion.
Court Jurisdiction to Enforce a Final Judgment Incorporating a Settlement Agreement
When a circuit court enters a final judgment of dissolution and incorporates a marital settlement agreement, the court does not lose authority over the case once the judgment is signed. To the contrary, the court retains continuing jurisdiction to enforce the judgment and the incorporated settlement terms as necessary. Williams v. Williams, 251 So. 3d 926. That continuing jurisdiction is what permits a former spouse to return to the same circuit court years later, file a motion for enforcement, and ask the judge to compel compliance with the bargain that the parties struck during the dissolution.
However, retained jurisdiction is not the same as unlimited power. The court can use only those enforcement tools that the rules and the constitution authorize. Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.570 lists several mechanisms, including the power to compel performance of a specific act, but the rule must be read together with the constitutional limitation discussed above. As the Fourth District emphasized in Williams, the trial court’s enforcement authority does not include the power to jail a former spouse for nonpayment of a property settlement debt. For that reason, a motion for enforcement of equitable distribution must be drafted with precision, identifying the specific provision being enforced, the nature of the obligation, and the appropriate enforcement mechanism for that obligation.
The General Rule: Equitable Distribution Payment Obligations Are Treated as Debts
Florida appellate decisions describe the law in this area as well-settled. Lynch v. Lockyer, 180 So. 3d 1120. The general rule is that contempt does not lie to enforce a property settlement arising out of a dissolution of marriage. This rule applies whether the equitable distribution obligation takes the form of an equalizing payment, a share of sale proceeds, a reimbursement for marital expenditures, a buyout of a business interest, or any other purely monetary award designed to balance the division of marital assets and liabilities. In each of these scenarios, the obligation is, at its core, a debt owed by one former spouse to the other. Because it is a debt, the constitutional prohibition on imprisonment for debt applies with full force.
Accordingly, where an equitable distribution provision requires one spouse to pay the other a sum of money, contempt is generally improper. Lynch v. Lockyer, 180 So. 3d 1120. The Fifth District Court of Appeal has gone so far as to hold that a trial court commits reversible error when it includes in a final judgment any provision stating that nonpayment of equitable distribution monies will be enforced through contempt. Stufft v. Stufft, 238 So. 3d 419. The proper remedies are creditor remedies, and any contrary language in a final judgment is subject to reversal on appeal. Walker v. Segro, 848 So. 2d 464.
For Miami family law practitioners, the practical implication is significant. When drafting a marital settlement agreement that requires a substantial equalizing payment, practitioners cannot rely on the threat of contempt to ensure performance. They must instead build into the agreement other protections, such as a security interest in real property, a promissory note secured by a mortgage, or a confession of judgment that can be quickly reduced to a writ of execution if the obligor defaults. The attorney who fails to anticipate this constitutional limit may discover, years later, that the only remedy available to the client is a slow and expensive collection action.
Creditor Remedies: Execution, Garnishment, and Other Final Process
Because equitable distribution payment obligations are generally enforced like any other money judgment, the relevant procedural rules direct the obligee toward the same toolkit that a bank or a judgment creditor would use against a defaulting debtor. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.570 provides that final process to enforce a judgment solely for the payment of money is by execution, writ of garnishment, or other appropriate process or proceedings. The rule applies broadly, and the Fourth District Court of Appeal has confirmed that it governs enforcement of money judgments arising out of family law cases as well as commercial litigation. Merrill Lynch Trust Co. v. Alzheimer’s Lifeliners Ass’n, 832 So. 2d 948.
In practice, the obligee spouse seeking to collect an equitable distribution payment typically begins with a writ of execution directed to the sheriff in the county where the obligor’s tangible personal property is located. Furthermore, the obligee may pursue a writ of garnishment against the obligor’s bank accounts or wages, subject to the head-of-household exemption and other statutory protections that frequently limit the practical reach of wage garnishment in Florida. In Miami-Dade County, garnishment proceedings are filed in the same circuit court that entered the final judgment, and the procedure is governed by chapter 77 of the Florida Statutes. Additional creditor remedies, such as proceedings supplementary, charging orders against the obligor’s interest in a limited liability company, and judicial sales of titled property, may also be available depending on the structure of the obligor’s assets.
For this reason, equitable distribution enforcement Florida courts will sustain almost always begins with a careful asset investigation. Counsel for the obligee must locate the obligor’s bank accounts, employment, real property, vehicles, business interests, and any other resources that can support a creditor remedy. Without that foundation, even a perfectly valid judgment can sit unenforceable on the docket for years.
The Critical Exception: Contempt to Compel Performance of a Specific Act
Although the general rule prohibits the use of contempt to enforce equitable distribution payment obligations, Florida law recognizes a narrow but significant exception that often determines the outcome of post-judgment litigation. When the dissolution judgment, or an incorporated settlement agreement, requires a former spouse to perform a specific act, contempt may be used to compel performance of that act. Muszynski v. Muszynski, 325 So. 3d 105. This exception is consistent with the constitutional limitation because the contempt sanction is directed at compelling compliance with an order to do an act, rather than at punishing nonpayment of a debt. Williams v. Williams, 251 So. 3d 926.
The classic illustration appears in Muszynski, where the Fifth District Court of Appeal held that contempt was proper when a former husband failed to sign a note and mortgage that the dissolution judgment required him to execute in order to secure his equitable distribution obligations. The husband’s refusal was not a mere failure to pay money. It was a refusal to perform a defined act that the court had ordered him to do. Because the underlying obligation was framed as a duty to act, the constitutional prohibition on imprisonment for debt did not bar the use of contempt as an enforcement tool. Muszynski v. Muszynski, 325 So. 3d 105.
Other examples of obligations that fall within this exception include duties to execute a quitclaim deed transferring title to a marital home, duties to deliver titled personal property such as a vehicle or a boat, duties to cooperate in the preparation of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, duties to refinance a mortgage to remove the other spouse’s name from the loan, and duties to sign documents necessary to effectuate the division of a retirement account or a business interest. In each of these scenarios, the dissolution judgment can require the obligor to perform a defined act, and the failure to perform that act exposes the obligor to civil contempt sanctions designed to coerce compliance.
The drafting lesson for South Florida family law attorneys is direct. Whenever the structure of a settlement permits, counsel should frame equitable distribution obligations as duties to act rather than as duties to pay. A clause that requires the obligor to execute a promissory note and mortgage securing the equalizing payment is enforceable by contempt. A clause that simply requires the obligor to pay the equalizing payment is enforceable only by creditor remedies. The difference can determine whether the client has any meaningful leverage when the obligor defaults.
Distinguishing Equitable Distribution from Support: Why Classification Matters
Florida law commonly distinguishes between two categories of awards arising from marital settlement agreements. Support awards, which include alimony of all statutory varieties and child support, may be enforced by contempt proceedings and incarceration, subject to applicable procedural and ability-to-pay requirements. Said v. Bell, 407 So. 3d 1273. Equitable distribution awards, by contrast, are generally treated as debts that are not enforceable by contempt. Lynch v. Lockyer, 180 So. 3d 1120. The classification of a particular obligation as support or as equitable distribution can therefore be the single most important issue in any post-judgment enforcement proceeding.
For example, a settlement agreement may provide that the husband will pay the wife a fixed monthly sum for a term of years, characterized in the document as durational alimony. That obligation is plainly support. The wife may enforce it by contempt if the husband stops paying, subject to the procedural safeguards discussed below. Alternatively, the same settlement agreement may provide that the husband will pay the wife a fixed lump sum, payable in monthly installments over a term of years, characterized in the document as an equalizing payment for the wife’s share of the husband’s business. That obligation is plainly equitable distribution. The wife may enforce it only through creditor remedies if the husband stops paying, regardless of how badly the wife needs the money or how clearly the husband is in default.
However, the line between support and equitable distribution is not always clean. Florida appellate courts have repeatedly addressed agreements that blur the categories, such as obligations to pay marital debts assigned to one spouse, obligations to pay the mortgage on a residence occupied by the other spouse and the children, and obligations to pay attorney’s fees as part of an overall settlement. The classification of these hybrid obligations turns on the substance of the obligation rather than on the label that the parties assigned to it. Said v. Bell, 407 So. 3d 1273. As a result, both the drafter and the enforcer of a settlement agreement must think carefully about how each obligation will be characterized if a court is later asked to decide whether contempt is available.
Civil Contempt Safeguards: The Purge Provision and Present Ability to Comply
Where civil contempt is an available enforcement mechanism, whether to compel a specific act in an equitable distribution context or to enforce a support obligation, Florida law imposes a set of procedural safeguards that the trial court must observe. The first and most important safeguard is the requirement of a purge provision. Civil contempt is, by definition, coercive rather than punitive, and it is intended to obtain compliance with a court order. Sosa v. Portilla, 306 So. 3d 979. For that reason, every civil contempt order must contain a specific purge provision informing the contemnor exactly what must be done to purge the contempt and secure release from any sanction.
Furthermore, when a civil contempt order imposes incarceration, the trial court must make a finding that the contemnor has the present ability to purge the contempt. Sosa v. Portilla, 306 So. 3d 979. Without a present-ability finding, incarceration is improper because the contempt sanction is no longer coercive in any meaningful sense. A contemnor who cannot perform the act required to purge the contempt is being punished for a past failure rather than coerced into present compliance, and that posture transforms civil contempt into criminal contempt without the corresponding due process protections.
For practitioners in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit, the practical lesson is that any motion for civil contempt must be drafted with the purge provision in mind. The motion should identify exactly what the alleged contemnor must do to purge the contempt, and the proposed order presented to the court should contain that purge provision in plain language. Moreover, where incarceration is on the table, the moving party must be prepared to put on evidence of the contemnor’s present ability to comply, whether through bank records, pay stubs, employer testimony, or other admissible proof.
Notice and Due Process Under Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615
In addition to the purge and ability-to-comply requirements, a person facing civil contempt sanctions in a Florida family law case is entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard. Dileo v. Dileo, 939 So. 2d 181. Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615 sets out the specific notice requirements that govern civil contempt proceedings, including mandatory warning language that must appear in the notice of hearing. The rule is designed to ensure that an alleged contemnor understands the nature of the proceeding, the potential consequences, and the right to present evidence and argument.
Failure to comply with the notice requirements of Rule 12.615 can render any resulting contempt order voidable on appeal. Similarly, failure to include a purge provision or to make ability-to-comply findings undermines the validity of civil contempt sanctions. Sosa v. Portilla, 306 So. 3d 979. For that reason, both the moving party and the responding party should treat Rule 12.615 as a checklist. The motion, the notice of hearing, the proposed order, and the trial court’s oral and written findings must all reflect compliance with the rule.
In Miami-Dade family court, motions for civil contempt are typically heard on the family division motion calendar or on a special set hearing depending on the complexity of the issues and the anticipated length of the hearing. Counsel should plan accordingly, especially when an evidentiary hearing on present ability to comply is required.
Practical Drafting Strategies for Settlement Agreements
Because the available enforcement remedies depend so heavily on how each obligation is characterized, the drafting of a marital settlement agreement is the single most important opportunity to shape future enforcement options. A well-drafted agreement anticipates default scenarios and structures the obligations to maximize the obligee’s leverage. Several drafting strategies deserve particular attention in the equitable distribution enforcement Florida context.
First, whenever a substantial equalizing payment is owed, the agreement should require the obligor to execute a promissory note and a mortgage securing the payment against specific real property. As Muszynski illustrates, the duty to sign the note and mortgage is itself enforceable by contempt, and the resulting security interest gives the obligee a direct path to a judicial sale if the obligor later defaults. A bare promise to pay, by contrast, leaves the obligee with only creditor remedies and exposes the equalizing payment to the obligor’s other creditors.
Second, where the marital estate includes a home that one spouse will retain, the agreement should require that spouse to refinance the mortgage within a defined period to remove the other spouse’s name from the loan. The duty to refinance is a duty to act, and noncompliance can be addressed through contempt to compel performance, or through alternative remedies such as a forced sale. In addition, the agreement should specify what happens if the refinance cannot be obtained within the deadline, including a clear self-executing remedy that does not require further litigation.
Third, where retirement accounts will be divided, the agreement should require the parties to cooperate in the preparation and entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, with specific deadlines for retaining a QDRO drafter, submitting the draft to the plan administrator, and presenting the entered order to the plan. Each of these duties is a duty to act, and each can be enforced through contempt if necessary.
Fourth, where vehicles, boats, or other titled personal property will be transferred, the agreement should specify the precise documents that must be signed, the location and timing of the transfer, and the consequences of noncompliance. Specificity matters, because a vague duty to cooperate is far harder to enforce than a defined duty to execute a particular title transfer document on a particular date.
Finally, the agreement should include a prevailing-party attorney’s fee provision applicable to enforcement litigation. Although the constitutional prohibition on imprisonment for debt limits the use of contempt for monetary obligations, a fee-shifting clause gives the obligee a meaningful financial incentive to enforce the agreement and, conversely, gives the obligor a meaningful financial incentive to perform.
Common Enforcement Scenarios in Miami-Dade Family Court
The general principles governing equitable distribution enforcement Florida courts apply take on practical shape when measured against the kinds of disputes that recur in the Miami-Dade family division. Several scenarios appear repeatedly in post-judgment practice, and each illustrates the interaction between the general rule, the constitutional limit, and the specific-act exception.
In one common scenario, the obligor is required to pay the obligee an equalizing payment in a single lump sum within a defined period after entry of the final judgment. The obligor fails to pay. The obligee files a motion for contempt. Under Lynch and Stufft, the motion will fail to the extent it seeks contempt sanctions, because the underlying obligation is a pure money debt. The obligee’s proper remedy is to record the final judgment, obtain a writ of execution, and pursue garnishment and proceedings supplementary against the obligor’s assets.
In a second common scenario, the obligor is required to execute a quitclaim deed transferring title to the marital home to the obligee, who is also assuming the mortgage. The obligor refuses to sign. The obligee files a motion for contempt. Under Muszynski and Williams, the motion is a proper vehicle, because the underlying obligation is a duty to perform a specific act. The court can order the obligor to sign the deed by a date certain, hold the obligor in contempt for failure to comply, and impose coercive sanctions, including incarceration, with an appropriate purge provision and a finding of present ability to comply.
In a third common scenario, the obligor is required to make monthly installment payments on an equalizing payment that is itself secured by a promissory note and mortgage executed at the time of the final judgment. The obligor stops paying. The obligee has two parallel paths. The obligee can pursue a creditor remedy by accelerating the note, recording the mortgage if it has not already been recorded, and proceeding with a foreclosure of the security interest. Alternatively, if the agreement also imposed specific duties to perform acts, such as a duty to maintain the security or a duty to deliver replacement collateral, those duties may support a contempt proceeding to the extent they are independently enforceable as duties to act.
In a fourth common scenario, the dissolution judgment requires the obligor to indemnify the obligee against a marital debt assigned to the obligor in the property division. The obligor fails to pay the underlying creditor, and the creditor sues the obligee. The obligee then sues the obligor for breach of the indemnity provision. Whether contempt is available depends on the precise structure of the obligation. If the indemnity is framed as a duty to pay money, contempt is generally barred. If the indemnity is framed as a duty to defend, hold harmless, or take specific action to protect the obligee, the duty-to-act exception may apply.
These scenarios illustrate why characterization is so important and why no enforcement strategy can be designed in the abstract. Each post-judgment dispute requires a careful reading of the underlying judgment and incorporated agreement, a precise characterization of each obligation, and a deliberate selection of the enforcement remedy that fits the obligation.
Working with a Miami Family Law Attorney to Enforce Your Judgment
If you are facing a former spouse who refuses to pay an equalizing payment, transfer property, sign a deed or mortgage, or otherwise comply with the equitable distribution provisions of your final judgment of dissolution, you do not have to navigate this process alone. The rules governing equitable distribution enforcement in Florida are technical, the constitutional limits are unforgiving, and the difference between a successful enforcement action and a wasted motion often turns on the precise characterization of the obligation and the selection of the right procedural vehicle.
The Law Firm of Jeffrey Alan Aenlle, PLLC represents clients throughout Miami-Dade and Broward Counties in post-judgment family law enforcement, including motions to compel performance of equitable distribution obligations, motions for civil contempt where the duty-to-act exception applies, and creditor-style collection proceedings against defaulting former spouses. We also draft marital settlement agreements with enforcement in mind, structuring obligations to maximize the leverage available to our clients if a default later occurs.
Whether you are responding to a recent default, planning a long-term collection strategy, or negotiating a settlement that you want to be enforceable years from now, we can help you understand your options and select the path that best protects your interests. Call us today at +1.786.309.8588 to schedule a consultation and to discuss the equitable distribution enforcement Florida tools that may be available in your case.
Conclusion
Equitable distribution enforcement in Florida is governed by a tightly structured set of rules that reflect both the practical needs of family law practice and the constitutional prohibition on imprisonment for debt. Under the general rule, equitable distribution payment obligations are treated as debts and are not enforceable by contempt; enforcement typically proceeds through execution, garnishment, or other judgment-collection processes. Lynch v. Lockyer, 180 So. 3d 1120; Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.570. A narrow exception permits contempt where the dissolution judgment requires performance of a specific act, such as executing documents to secure or transfer property, in which case contempt may be used to compel compliance without violating the constitutional prohibition on imprisonment for debt. Williams v. Williams, 251 So. 3d 926; Muszynski v. Muszynski, 325 So. 3d 105. Where contempt is legally available, the resulting order must include a purge provision and, if incarceration is imposed, findings of present ability to comply, and the alleged contemnor must receive notice and an opportunity to be heard. Sosa v. Portilla, 306 So. 3d 979; Fla. Fam. Law R. Proc. 12.615.
For attorneys and clients alike, the key takeaway is that the success of any equitable distribution enforcement effort begins long before the obligor defaults. It begins with the drafting of the settlement agreement and the structuring of each obligation as either a duty to pay or a duty to act, with full awareness of the enforcement consequences that flow from that choice. When a default does occur, the same careful analysis must be applied to select the appropriate remedy and to comply with the procedural safeguards that govern any contempt proceeding in Florida family court.
TLDR: Equitable distribution enforcement Florida courts allow generally proceeds through creditor remedies such as execution and garnishment, because Article I, section 11 of the Florida Constitution prohibits imprisonment for debt and bars contempt as an enforcement tool for property settlement money obligations. A narrow exception permits contempt to compel performance of a specific act required by the dissolution judgment, such as executing a deed, note, or mortgage to secure equitable distribution.
Can a Florida court hold my ex-spouse in contempt for failing to pay an equalizing payment under our final judgment?
Generally no. Under Lynch v. Lockyer, 180 So. 3d 1120, equitable distribution payment obligations are treated as debts, and the Florida Constitution prohibits imprisonment for debt. The proper remedies are creditor remedies such as execution, garnishment, and proceedings supplementary under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.570. A trial court that orders contempt as an enforcement tool for a pure money obligation is subject to reversal on appeal. Stufft v. Stufft, 238 So. 3d 419.
When can a Florida family court use contempt to enforce equitable distribution?
Contempt is available when the dissolution judgment requires a former spouse to perform a specific act, such as signing a quitclaim deed, executing a promissory note and mortgage, transferring title to a vehicle, or cooperating with the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order. Muszynski v. Muszynski, 325 So. 3d 105; Williams v. Williams, 251 So. 3d 926. Because contempt in this scenario coerces compliance with a duty to act rather than punishing nonpayment of a debt, it does not violate the constitutional prohibition on imprisonment for debt.
Why does support get treated differently from equitable distribution for contempt purposes?
Florida law has long distinguished between support obligations, which are designed to provide for the maintenance of a former spouse or a minor child, and equitable distribution obligations, which are designed to divide marital property. Said v. Bell, 407 So. 3d 1273. Support obligations fall outside the constitutional prohibition on imprisonment for debt and may be enforced by contempt and incarceration, subject to procedural safeguards and ability-to-pay findings. Equitable distribution obligations are treated as debts and are not enforceable by contempt unless framed as duties to act.
What is a purge provision and why does my contempt order need one?
A purge provision is the part of a civil contempt order that tells the contemnor exactly what must be done to purge the contempt and secure release from any sanction. Sosa v. Portilla, 306 So. 3d 979. Civil contempt is coercive rather than punitive, and a purge provision is what makes it coercive. Without a specific purge provision, a civil contempt order is invalid, and any incarceration imposed under that order is improper.
What notice does a person facing civil contempt in Florida family court receive?
Florida Family Law Rule of Procedure 12.615 sets out specific notice requirements for civil contempt proceedings, including mandatory warning language that must appear in the notice of hearing. Dileo v. Dileo, 939 So. 2d 181. The notice must be reasonably calculated to apprise the alleged contemnor of the proceedings and to allow a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Failure to comply with these notice requirements can render a resulting contempt order voidable on appeal.
If contempt is not available, how do I actually collect the equitable distribution money my ex owes me in Miami?
You collect it the same way any judgment creditor collects a money judgment. The process typically begins with a writ of execution under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.570 and continues with a writ of garnishment against the obligor’s bank accounts or wages, subject to the head-of-household exemption. Merrill Lynch Trust Co. v. Alzheimer’s Lifeliners Ass’n, 832 So. 2d 948. Additional tools include proceedings supplementary, charging orders against limited liability company interests, and judicial sales of titled property. A careful asset investigation by your Miami family law attorney is the foundation of any successful collection strategy.
Can I structure my marital settlement agreement to make equitable distribution easier to enforce later?
Yes, and this is one of the most important services a skilled family law attorney provides. The general approach is to convert duties to pay into duties to act wherever possible. For example, instead of a bare promise to pay an equalizing sum, the agreement can require the obligor to execute a promissory note and mortgage securing the payment, which is a duty to act enforceable by contempt under Muszynski v. Muszynski, 325 So. 3d 105. Other strategies include defined deadlines for refinancing the marital home, specific cooperation duties for QDRO entry, and prevailing-party attorney’s fee provisions for enforcement litigation.
