Seng v. Seng, 91-136
| Decision Date | 27 December 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-136,91-136 |
| Citation | 590 So.2d 1120 |
| Parties | Rudolph Alvin SENG, Jr., Appellant, v. Linda L. SENG, Appellee. 590 So.2d 1120, 17 Fla. L. Week. D91 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Appellee moves for rehearing in this cause. Because this court's prior opinion made some inexact fact statements which may impact the cause on remand, we amend it as follows.
Rudolph Seng, the former husband, appeals from a final order which denied his various motions (for contempt, arrearage, sequestration, and others) which had been filed with the dissolution court on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction to enforce the former wife's obligation to pay a promissory note which she had guaranteed pursuant to the settlement agreement. The court in this case included in its judgment a general reservation of powers to enforce the judgment. 1 The trial court emphasized that the dissolution judgment and settlement incorporated in it, only required that the former wife, Linda Seng, guarantee the payment of a corporate promissory note, and not to make the $3,000 per week payments, which the corporation was to make to the former husband. We reverse.
The parties entered into a settlement agreement in this case. Counsel for the husband argued below that it was entered into at a time when the former husband was ill and not expected to live long. He agreed to transfer all of his interest in a family business (a restaurant) to his former wife. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, she agreed to pay him $200,000. In the following paragraph of the settlement agreement, she agreed the corporation (to be solely owned by her) would pay him $3,000 per week for his lifetime, and that she would personally guarantee the promissory note executed by the corporation to evidence this obligation. In an additional paragraph, the settlement provided that so long as the former husband received the $3,000 weekly payment, he would not "compete" in the restaurant business.
In defense of this proceeding, the former wife challenged the validity of the promissory note (fraud and concealment) and the legality of the non-compete agreement. The former husband has not challenged its validity. The former wife questioned the jurisdiction of the dissolution court to enforce the former wife's $3,000 weekly payment obligation as guarantor of the corporation.
Both parties recognize the general...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Abernethy v. Fishkin
...to grant the wife's motion for enforcement. See Work v. Provine, 632 So.2d 1119, 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Seng v. Seng, 590 So.2d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). See also Clauson v. Clauson, 831 P.2d 1257, 1261 (Alaska 1992). The trial court's order enforced the final judgment's provisions......
-
Montanez v. Montanez, 96-05245
...So.2d 246 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Nor does it mean that the trial court is powerless to act in enforcing its judgment. See Seng v. Seng, 590 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991) (although contempt was not an appropriate enforcement mechanism, trial court could use other remedies such as judgment for......
-
Work v. Provine, 92-2308
...the purpose of enforcing the final judgment of dissolution regardless of whether a specific reservation has been made. Seng v. Seng, 590 So.2d 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991). Although the former wife styled her petition as a petition for modification, it is obvious that the former wife intended, ......
-
Cent. Park a Metrowest Condo. Assoc., Inc. v. Amtrust Reo I, LLC
...Kennedy, 638 So.2d 577, 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) ; see also Work v. Provine, 632 So.2d 1119, 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) ; Seng v. Seng, 590 So.2d 1120, 1121 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991).Moreover, the post-judgment motion at issue in Huml pertained to post-judgment enforcement of the property rights that......
-
Equitable distribution and property issues
...with or without a specific reservation of jurisdiction. [ Kennedy v. Kennedy, 638 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Seng v. Seng, 590 So. 2d 1120 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995) (proceedings to enforce dissolution judgments cannot be used to modify property rights not adjudicated by dissolution decree whe......