Levitt v. Levitt, 96-4025
| Decision Date | 27 August 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-4025,96-4025 |
| Citation | 699 So.2d 755 |
| Parties | 22 Fla. L. Weekly D2032 Mark J. LEVITT, Appellant, v. Cynthia W. LEVITT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Richard A. Sherman and Rosemary B. Wilder of the Law Offices of Richard A. Sherman, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
Monica I. Salis of Monica I. Salis, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellee.
Appellant, Mark Levitt ("former husband"), appeals a post-judgment order granting Appellee, Cynthia Levitt ("former wife"), her attorney's fees in a marital dissolution action. We reverse.
The parties entered into a marital settlement agreement that superseded a handwritten mediation agreement. The marital settlement agreement specifically stated that it was the entire understanding of the parties and that there were "no representations, warranties, covenants and undertakings other than those expressly set forth" in the agreement. The disputed provision in the marital settlement agreement provides that the former husband pay the balance of the former wife's attorney's fees in an amount not to exceed $12,500 and that "payment of this amount is subject to the Husband's review of and consent to the Wife's attorney's billing records, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld."
When the former wife's counsel submitted a bill for $12,500, the former husband withheld his consent to pay on the grounds that the bill was unreasonable. Both parties then moved for the trial court to interpret the attorney's fees provision. The trial court found the attorney's fee provision in the marital settlement agreement to be ambiguous. After reviewing the marital settlement agreement and other extrinsic evidence, the trial court determined that the parties intended a "flat fee" arrangement and ordered the former husband to pay the $12,500 in attorney's fees. The issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred in ruling that the attorney's fees provision in the marital settlement agreement was ambiguous.
It is well settled that a marital settlement agreement is subject to interpretation like any other contract. See Richter v. Richter, 666 So.2d 559, 561 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995); Bingemann v. Bingemann, 551 So.2d 1228, 1231 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), rev. denied, 560 So.2d 232 (Fla.1990). As with any contract, a marital settlement agreement is construed as a matter of law. See Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). As such, this Court is on equal footing with the trial court as interpreter of the written document. See id.
Where the terms of a marital settlement agreement are clear and unambiguous the parties' intent must be gleaned from the four corners of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DuBrul v. Citrosuco N. Am., Inc.
...for the Court, if its language is clear and unambiguous. Crawford v. Barker, 64 So.3d 1246, 1255 (Fla.2011) (quoting Levitt v. Levitt, 699 So.2d 755, 757 (Fla.App.1997)). Where the language is clear and unambiguous, the parties' intent must be “gleaned from the four corners of the document.......
-
Crawford v. Barker
...Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) preempts state law in this case.3 A marital settlement agreement is a contract. Levitt v. Levitt, 699 So.2d 755, 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“It is well settled that a marital settlement agreement is subject to interpretation like any other contract.”); see ......
-
Johnson v. Johnson
...agreement is unambiguous and, as such, it is subject to a de novo review by this court as a matter of law. See Levitt v. Levitt, 699 So.2d 755, 756-57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). That said, we do not agree that the prefatory recitat......
-
Schmachtenberg v. Schmachtenberg, No. 3D08-2508 (Fla. App. 2/24/2010)
...to interpretation like any other contract." Ballyntyne v. Ballyntyne, 666 So. 2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); see Levitt v. Levitt, 699 So. 2d 755, 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) ("It is well settled that a marital settlement agreement is subject to interpretation like any other contract."). Acco......
-
Alternative dispute resolution and settlement
...[ Sassano v. Sassano, 721 So. 2d 444 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)(trial court correctly excluded evidence of parties’ intent); Levitt v. Levitt, 699 So. 2d 755 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)(trial court erred by reviewing evidence extrinsic to marital settlement agreement and determining that parties intended ......