Hyotlaine v. Hyotlaine, 76-2580
| Decision Date | 04 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 76-2580,76-2580 |
| Citation | 356 So.2d 1319 |
| Parties | Mary E. HYOTLAINE, Appellant, v. William K. HYOTLAINE, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Charles H. Warwick, III, of Warwick, Campbell, Dickenson & Hewitt, Palm Beach, for appellant.
Richard B. Burk of Scott, Burk, Royce, Harris & Loucks, P. A., Palm Beach, for appellee.
In this dissolution of marriage case the wife appeals, contending that the trial court erred in finding that certain payments to her provided for in an agreement entered into by the parties and subsequently incorporated into the divorce judgment, were alimony and subject to modification. She further contends that, if the payments are alimony, the trial court erred in reducing the payments. She also argues that the trial court erred in reducing the amount of a security escrow required by the agreement. We find that the payments, at least in part, are alimony and as such are subject to modification. We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reducing the amount of the payments, but we conclude that the trial court did err in reducing the amount of the security escrow.
Section 8 of the agreement, entitled "Support of Wife," provides that the husband shall pay to the wife $32,000 a year, and that upon the death of the wife's mother the payments shall be reduced to $28,000 a year. At the time of the hearing the wife's mother was still living. The agreement further provides that in the event the wife remarries the payments are to be reduced to $10,000 a year. The trial court modified the final judgment by reducing the husband's payments from $32,000 to $24,000 a year, with the further provision that upon the death of the wife's mother the payments would be reduced to $20,000 a year.
In reference to the payments, if they are for support, maintenance or alimony, either party may apply for a judgment decreasing or increasing the amount provided for in the agreement. Section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1975). On the other hand, if the payments are part of a true property settlement agreement they are not subject to modification. Salomon v. Salomon, 196 So.2d 111 (Fla.1967). We find paragraph 8 to be, at least in part, an agreement for the payment of alimony. 1 We reach this conclusion based upon a reading of the entire agreement, but we particularly note the introductory language which recites that "property rights of the parties as well as questions of alimony payment have been placed in issue by both parties" and that "the parties desire to settle all questions regarding property rights, support and maintenance and other rights and obligations growing out of the marriage relation." We also note that paragraph 8 provides: "all payments provided in this paragraph shall be taxable to the wife and deductible by the husband." Such tax treatment would be allowable only if the payments were alimony and not part of a property settlement agreement.
Having determined that the payments are subject to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pipitone v. Pipitone
...the nature and substance of the whole agreement. Waddell v. Waddell, 305 So.2d 30 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); see also Hyotlaine v. Hyotlaine, 356 So.2d 1319, 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). Normally, the terms used by the parties reflect their intent, but are not conclusive if the context unmistakably s......
-
Woodworth v. Woodworth, 79-365
...first issue is whether, as a matter of law, the above agreement is subject to modification within the rule of Hyotlaine v. Hyotlaine, 356 So.2d 1319, 1320 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978): In reference to the payments, if they are for support, maintenance or alimony, either party may apply for a judgmen......
-
Wolfe v. Wolfe
...the payments was permissible only if the payments were alimony and not part of a property settlement agreement. Hyotlaine v. Hyotlaine, 356 So.2d 1319, 1321 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). The charging of such payments to appellee's estate in paragraph 16 does not change our conclusion because parties......
-
Maher v. Maher, 85-2672
...(Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Woodworth v. Woodworth, 385 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA), rev. denied, 392 So.2d 1381 (Fla.1980); Hyotlaine v. Hyotlaine, 356 So.2d 1319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); Boyd v. Boyd, 478 So.2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), rev. denied, 488 So.2d 67 (Fla.1986). Nevertheless, the trial judge......