Haynes v. Haynes
| Decision Date | 23 February 1954 |
| Citation | 71 So.2d 491 |
| Parties | HAYNES v. HAYNES. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Hull, Landis, Graham & French, John L. Graham and E. A. Rano, De Land, for appellant.
Raymond & Wilson, Daytona Beach, for appellee.
Elizabeth Haynes was awarded a final decree of divorce in 1944, in the Circuit Court for Volusia County, Florida. The parties to the cause filed with the court, prior to entry of the final decree, a stipulation providing that the defendant husband pay his wife's counsel fees, half of their jointly assessed income tax, and all costs of the divorce proceeding; that he surrender to the plaintiff wife the real estate occupied by the parties as their home, 'free and clear of all liens and encumbrances, by way of * * * taxes, mortgages, or otherwise;' and that a certain legacy bequeathed to defendant husband by his grandfather be paid over as follows:
'That the Honorable R. H. Boyd, Trustee under the Will of Alexander Calvin Haynes, be and he is hereby authorized to pay that certain legacy for $15,000.00, devised and bequeathed under paragraph 3 of the Will of Alexander Calvin Haynes, deceased, with accrued interest thereon to date of payment, as follows:
'out of which 1/4th interest, said Attorney is to first pay all obligations assumed or imposed upon defendant in and by this stipulation, or the final decree to be entered herein.'
The stipulation also provided 'that the plaintiff will not ask for alimony in the final decree to be entered herein,' and 'that this stipulation be made a part of the final decree herein.'
By the terms of the final decree the various transfers of property and funds were ordered to be made 'in accordance with stipulation of the parties,' without any express reference to the matter of alimony. No appeal was taken from the decree.
In 1947 Elizabeth Haynes filed a petition for modification of the decree so far as it pertained to alimony, setting up as a ground for modification a change of circumstances of the parties in that the defendant husband's income had increased from a modest sum at the time of the decree to an average net income in excess of $50,000 per annum at the time of the petition. As authority for her claim petitioner relied on Chapter 16780, Laws of Florida, Acts of 1935 (now section 65.15, Florida Statutes 1951, F.S.A.), which reads as follows:
'Modification, alimony decrees; agreements, etc.--Whenever any husband and wife heretofore, or hereafter, shall have entered into any agreement providing for the payments for, or in lieu of, separate support, maintenance or alimony, whether in connection with any action for divorce or separate maintenance, or with any voluntary property settlement, or whenever any husband has pursuant to the decree of any court of competent jurisdiction been required to make to his wife any such payments, and the circumstances of the parties or the financial ability of the husband shall have been changed since the execution of such agreement, or the rendition of such decree, either party may apply * * * for an order and judgment decreasing or increasing the amount of such separate support, maintenance or alimony * * *.'
The primary question on the appeal is whether alimony may be granted in a modification proceeding under the above statute when the original final decree of divorce between the parties made no provision for continuing alimony payments but instead provided for a division of property and certain lump sum awards to the wife, pursuant to written stipulation of the parties filed with the court.
It is contended that an earlier adjudication of this Court, in a proceeding for interlocutory certiorari to review a decree dismissing the petition of appellee herein for modification of the divorce decree so as to award alimony to her, is determinative of the issue. Haynes v. Haynes, Fla., 40 So.2d 123, 125. However, an examination of the opinion in the case will reveal that the ruling of this Court, that 'the petition is within the provision of Section 65.15, F.S.1941,' was predicated on the existence of an issue as to whether 'some of the benefits of a legacy which was a subject matter of the stipulation have not been received or paid, as contemplated by the stipulation'. (Emphasis supplied.) And from the evidence now before us on this appeal it is plain that the terms of the stipulation between the parties were carried out in full, and that the appellee relies entirely on other circumstances to warrant a new award of alimony.
The issue presented, therefore, is whether a change of circumstances, such as an increase in the husband's income, is sufficient to justify the entry of a modification order granting alimony in the face of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ohmes v. Ohmes
...assuredly has no application. Such was the nature of the agreement in Dix v. Dix, 1939, 140 Fla. 91, 191 So. 205, and in Haynes v. Haynes, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 491. But where the agreement between the parties goes further than settling their pure property rights and provides affirmatively for......
-
Mouyois v. Mouyois, 57-48
...v. McNeill, Fla.1952, 59 So.2d 57; Selinsky v. Selinsky, Fla.1952, 62 So.2d 24; Simpson v. Smipson, Fla.1953, 63 So.2d 764; Haynes v. Haynes, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 491. The chancellor, in his final decree, showed clearly his awareness of the rule when he refused to grant the request of the ex-......
-
Kosch v. Kosch
...The binding effect of a complete property settlement agreement that defies subsequent modification is well-illustrated by Haynes v. Haynes, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 491. It will be noted that in Haynes there was no provision for continuing alimony payments. The agreement between the parties was i......
-
Salomon v. Salomon, 65-504.
...143 Fla. 513, 197 So. 128; Miller v. Miller, 149 Fla. 722, 7 So.2d 9; Underwood v. Underwood, Fla. 1953; 64 So.2d 281; Haynes v. Haynes, Fla. 1954, 71 So.2d 491; Cowen v. Cowen, Fla. 1957, 95 So.2d 584. None of the conditions laid down in the above authorities appearing from the record in t......