Dawkins v. Dawkins, 4129
| Decision Date | 24 February 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 4129,4129 |
| Parties | J. C. DAWKINS, Appellant, v. Mary Esther DAWKINS, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Buckley & Bland, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
No appearance for appellee.
The appellant, husband-defendant below, appeals a decree of divorce which incorporated therein all the provisions of a separation and property settlement agreement between the parties except a part in which the wife waived alimony. The court found that under the circumstances the rejected part of the agreement was 'unfair and over-reaching,' refused to preclude alimony and retained jurisdiction on that question.
We reject appellant's contention that the chancellor was bound to accept the separation agreement in its entirety and we affirm.
Fla.Stat. § 65.08, F.S.A., vests in the chancellor the sole discretion to settle questions relative to alimony and the parties may not by contract divest him of this discretion. Although fair and equitable agreements which are not violative of public policy may be incorporated into a divorce decree, there is no statute or rule of law which says they must be.
In ruling on this point the District Court in Florida National Bank & Trust Co. at Miami v. United States, D.C.S.D.1960, 182 F.Supp . 76, said that under Fla.Stat. § 65.08, F.S.A., and the decisions in Florida:
'[The] judge in divorce [case] is given full power at the time he enters initial divorce decree to fix rights of parties, court has right to approve of a prior separation agreement or modify or disapprove of it in its entirety and once it is approved, it becomes the order of the court and decree becomes basis for settlement.'
This discretion of the chancellor in making an alimony award in the initial decree under Fla.Stat. § 65.08, F.S.A., should not be confused with the power of the court to modify a divorce decree which incorporated such an agreement under Fla.Stat. § 65.15, F.S.A.
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Posner v. Posner
...and nature of the case may be fit, equitable and just; but no alimony shall be granted to an adulterous wife * * *'. In Dawkins v. Dawkins, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 633, the District Court of Appeal, Second District, 'Fla.Stat. § 65.08, F.S.A., vests in the chancellor the sole discretion to ......
-
Ohmes v. Ohmes
...to the same effect Chastain v. Chastain, Fla.1954, 73 So.2d 66; Chiapetta v. Jordan, 1943, 153 Fla. 788, 16 So.2d 641; Dawkins v. Dawkins, Fla.App.1965, 172 So.2d 633; Haynes v. Haynes, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 491; Hunter v. Hunter, Fla.App.1959, 108 So.2d 478; Eisinger v. Eisinger, Fla.1957, 95......
-
Hahn v. Hahn, 84-473
...in my view, that such an agreement should be reviewed for basic fairness to prevent an unconscionable result. See Dawkins v. Dawkins, 172 So.2d 633 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965). A private contract should not oust the courts of their jurisdiction to see that the state's interest in insuring adequate s......
-
Singer v. Singer
...several cases hoping to thereby clarify an area in which we perceive some confusion presently exists. The case of Dawkins v. Dawkins, 172 So.2d 633 (2nd DCA Fla.1965) involved a Postnuptial agreement. Therein, the wife had expressly waived alimony. The trial court refused to accept that par......