Shaw v. Shaw, 81-1176
| Decision Date | 25 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-1176,81-1176 |
| Citation | 448 So.2d 631 |
| Parties | Richard A. SHAW, Appellant, v. Barbara L. SHAW, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
James K. Pedley, Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.
John L. O'Brien, Boca Raton, for appellee.
The former husband appeals from an order denying his petition for modification of "alimony" payments. The trial court found that the payments were due under a non-modifiable property settlement agreement. Alternatively, the trial court held that even if the agreement were legally subject to modification, the husband was not entitled to modification under section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1983), because he failed to make a sufficient showing of changed financial circumstances. We find it unnecessary to review the sufficiency of the husband's evidence in support of modification because we agree that the property settlement agreement is non-modifiable. Therefore, we affirm.
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the wife agreed to convey to the husband her interest in jointly held property and to relinquish claims against property in the husband's name. The husband, in turn, promised to convey to the wife his interest in various pieces of real estate, as well as a 1971 Cadillac automobile. The agreement further provides that "[t]he wife, for and in exchange of the conveyances to her by the husband as aforesaid, agrees to relinquish, release any claim for alimony or support over that specifically provided in Paragraph 2." Under paragraph 2, the husband promised to pay the wife a lump sum of $20,000.00 plus $1,600.00 per month until the wife dies or remarries. The monthly payments were to survive the death of the husband and be a claim against his estate under the specific terms of the contract.
The husband eventually sought modification of the term providing for monthly support payments, arguing that he had suffered a financial setback such that his assets decreased from a value of $547,710.05 at the time the agreement was executed, to a value of $367,633.00, of which no part are liquid; at the same time, the value of the wife's assets increased substantially. The wife counterclaimed for arrearages of support payments and specific performance of the agreement.
We think the trial court correctly denied the request for modification under section 61.14, Florida Statutes (1983), because the contract was a true property settlement agreement not subject to modification. See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bassett v. Bassett
...E.g., Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So.2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Wolfe v. Wolfe, 424 So.2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); compare, Shaw v. Shaw, 448 So.2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), and cases cited.* The Court did allow modification of the child support obligation stating that a contract cannot impair the ......
- Gawker Media, LLC v. Bollea
-
Boyd v. Boyd
...condition of a mutual exchange of property rights or obligations between the parties as in, for example, Salomon, Karch, Shaw v. Shaw, 448 So.2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), Pruitt v. Pruitt, 370 So.2d 813 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). Rather, the provision is simply one which involves a discharge, on an......
-
Fecteau v. Southeast Bank, N.A., 90-1584
...an incident of support, that clearly is not what happened here. True property settlement agreements cannot be modified. Shaw v. Shaw, 448 So.2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Appellees argue that paragraph four had to be a support obligation because it specifically provided that the arrangement c......