Salomon v. Salomon

• Decision Date: 01 February 1967
• Docket Number: No. 35161,35161
• Parties: Morris S. SALOMON, Petitioner, v. Ann Marlowe SALOMON, Respondent.
• Court: Florida Supreme Court

Page 111

196 So.2d 111

Morris S. SALOMON, Petitioner, v. Ann Marlowe SALOMON, Respondent.

No. 35161.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 1, 1967.

Rehearing Denied March 8, 1967.

Horton & Schwartz, Miami, for petitioner.

Miller & Podell, Miami Beach, for respondent.

ERVIN, Justice.

We are asked by petition for writ of certiorari to review a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, in Salomon v. Salomon, 186 So.2d 39.

The Circuit Court of Dade County, Florida on February 9, 1960 entered a final decree dissolving the bonds of matrimony existing between the Petitioner and the Respondent. Said decree, inter alia, confirmed a property settlement agreement between the parties dated January 27, 1960 and an addendum thereto dated January 27, 1960.

By the agreement the Petitioner-husband was to provide $9,200.00 per year for the Respondent-wife, payable as follows:

'A.) The Husband shall pay $100.00 each week unto the Wife, and payment thereof shall be made on Thursday in each week; and

B.) The Husband shall pay $333.33 each month unto the Wife, and payment thereof shall be mae on the first day of each month.'

The agreement goes on to provide that the obligation of the husband to pay the $9,200.00 per year shall continue only during the lifetime of the husband or until the wife dies or remarries. The agreement further states, and we note with emphasis, that

'(i)f, prior to the death of the Husband or the Wife, or remarriage of the Wife, the Wife sells or ceases to reside on the real property described in paragraph II hereof, as a result of which the Wife is denied homestead exemption on said property by the taxing authorities, then and from and after the date the Wife sells or ceases to reside on the said property and loses the benefit of said homestead exemption, the alimony, support and maintenance which the Husband will be obligated to pay the Wife, will be $5,200 per year, Payable in weekly installments of $100.00 each on Thursday in each week, and which shall continue until the death of the Husband or Wife, or remarriage of the Wife. The payments herein above provided for shall be made to the Wife at such place or places as she may, from time to time, reside.' (Emphasis added.)

The 'paragraph II' referred to above reads as follows: 'The Husband acknowledges that title to Lot 12, Block 3, San Marino Island * * * together with the buildings situate thereon, and all of the personal property contained therein, stands in the name of the Wife, and that the Husband has no right, title, claim or interest in and to said real and personal property.'

Both husband and wife in a subsequent paragraph in the agreement waived any and all right, title and interest in and to any and all property, both real and personal, held by the other or thereafter acquired.

Subsequent to the above settlement a petition was filed by the husband to reduce the sums of money required to be paid by the terms of the agreement. The Chancellor, after hearing testimony and evidence of the parties, entered a judgment amending the final decree and reduced the monthly amount of $333.33 payable to the Respondent-wife by the sum of $200.00 per month. Thus the Petitioner would pay to the Respondent the same $100.00 per week but would make monthly payments to her of $133.33 rather than the previous amount of $333.33. Respondent appealed and the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reversed said order amending the final decree. It concluded that the agreement attached to the final decree was a 'property settlement agreement' and in view of this the Chancellor was without authority to interfere with the contract between the parties.

The Petitioner here seeks review of that portion of the District Court's decision which concluded that the agreement attached to the final decree of divorce was a property settlement agreement, therefore not subject to modification under F.S. § 65.15, F.S.A.

We find from the record that we must agree with the District Court decision insofar as its reversal has the effect of denying reduction of the monthly payment of $333.33 by $200.00 per month. This Court and the District Courts of Appeal have held in no few cases that true property settlement agreements are not subject to modification under F.S. § 65.15, F.S.A. See Howell v. Howell, Fla.App., 164 So.2d 231; Fort v. Fort, Fla., 90 So.2d 313; Underwood v. Underwood, Fla., 64 So.2d 281, and Vance v. Vance, 143 Fla. 513, 197 So. 128. While the matter might have been given a more detailed discussion and analysis in the opinion of the District Court--and greater emphasis put...