Forte v. Forte, s. 75--215
| Citation | 320 So.2d 446 |
| Decision Date | 07 October 1975 |
| Docket Number | 75--597,Nos. 75--215,s. 75--215 |
| Parties | John FORTE, Appellant, v. Mary FORTE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Andrew C. Hall, Miami, for appellant.
Sinclair, Louis & Siegel and Neil A. Shanzer, Miami, for appellee.
Before HENDRY, HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ.
This is the consolidation of two interlocutory appeals by the husband, John Forte, petitioner in the trial court. In the first, he seeks review of the order of January 29, 1975, on motions to enforce the property settlement agreement. In the second, he seeks review of the order on the husband's motion to enforce the order of January 29, 1975.
On April 25, 1972, the marriage of John Forte and Mary Forte was dissolved. The separation agreement entered into by the parties on April 13, 1972, was incorporated within the final judgment of dissolution of marriage.
Under the terms of the agreement, Mary Forte was afforded an option with respect to housing and the right to purchase housing. As the first alternative, she had the right to select a homesite of a total value of, and not to exceed $15,000 and thereafter to cause John Forte to construct a home upon that site which should contain not more than 2,500 square feet under roof and have a construction cost of not more than $50,000 at the husband's actual cost. In the event that the wife exercised her option under this provision, the husband was required to assist the wife in the design of the home. The second alternative available to Mary Forte was to require John Forte to purchase a home for a sum not to exceed $65,000.
In either event, under the terms of the agreement, title to the house was to be taken in the husband's name and Mary Forte had the right to later purchase the home from John Forte for the amount of money expended by him in constructing or purchasing it.
In the event that Mary Forte failed to exercise either option, the agreement provided that John Forte would pay to Mary Forte additional support of $350 per month to be used by her and their two minor children for housing expenses. The agreement further provided that:
'In the event that the Husband refuses to perform any of his obligations in accordance with Paragraphs 8 and 9 above, providing that the Wife has rendered performance in accordance with the provisions thereof, then the time limit set forth in such preceding paragraphs shall be extended until the disagreement between the parties has been resolved.'
In March of 1973, John Forte filed a motion to enforce the terms of the agreement, contending that the wife had elected to cause a house to be constructed, but that she failed to timely provide him with plans for the construction as provided in the agreement. He sought an order either compelling that the plans be furnished, or discharging him from the obligation to have a house constructed. At the hearing on the motion, the architect selected by Mary Forte to design the house, testified that the plans were 75 per cent completed. The court required him to complete the plans within three weeks. When the plans were submitted to John Forte for approval and bids were obtained, it became apparent that the house could not be constructed within the agreed price. Mary Forte then sought to revert to the second option, the purchase of a home.
On January 29, 1975, after hearing extensive testimony, the trial judge found that the husband acted in bad faith in his negotiations with the wife as to constructing or purchasing a home, and entered an order on motions to enforce property settlement agreement, providing that
'(a) John Forte shall purchase for the use and benefit of Mary Forte a residential home to be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nelson v. Nelson
...genesis for the present residence of the children, was never approved by any court and is, in my view, a nullity. See Forte v. Forte, 320 So .2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied mem., 351 So.2d 406 (Fla.1977); Lang v. Lang, 252 So.2d 809 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971). Because no other court had d......
-
Powell v. Powell, 80-175
...judicial notice. Stanley v. Stanley, 158 Fla. 402, 28 So.2d 694 (1947); Pope v. Pope, 342 So.2d 1000 (Fla.4th DCA 1977); Forte v. Forte, 320 So.2d 446 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 351 So.2d 406 (Fla.1977); Annot., 18 A.L.R.2d 10 at § 5 (1951). In the cases cited, it was held that a rise......
-
Desilets v. Desilets
...judicial notice. Stanley v. Stanley, 158 Fla. 402, 28 So.2d 694 (1947); Pope v. Pope, 342 So.2d 1000 (Fla.4th DCA 1977); Forte v. Forte, 320 So.2d 446 (Fla.3d DCA 1975), Cert. denied, 351 So.2d 406 (Fla.1977); Annot., 18 ALR2d 10 at § 5 (1951). In the cases cited, it was held that a rise in......
-
Lewis v. Lewis, 93-1035
...explained that in matters of child visitation, the trial court is not bound by any stipulation or agreement. See also Forte v. Forte, 320 So.2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 351 So.2d 406 (Fla.1977); Elebash v. Elebash, 450 So.2d 1268 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984). Moreover, the creation of a......