Skinner v. Skinner, 88-3337

• Decision Date: 15 May 1991
• Docket Number: No. 88-3337,88-3337
• Citation: 579 So.2d 358
• Parties: Jeffrey SKINNER, Appellant, v. Lisa SKINNER, Appellee. 579 So.2d 358, 16 Fla. L. Week. D1316
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

Page 358

579 So.2d 358

Jeffrey SKINNER, Appellant, v. Lisa SKINNER, Appellee.

No. 88-3337.

579 So.2d 358, 16 Fla. L. Week. D1316

District Court of Appeal of Florida Fourth District.

May 15, 1991.

Michael K. Davis of Davis & Bass, Davie, for appellant.

Caryn S. Grainer of Caryn S. Grainer, P.A., Hollywood, for appellee.

DOWNEY, Judge.

This is a non-final appeal from an order granting a motion for relief from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage pursuant to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1), and directing appellant, husband, to pay a medical bill incurred by the wife prior to entry of the final judgment.

It appears that, while the parties were engaged in a suit for dissolution of their marriage, an order for temporary relief was entered, which, among other things, directed the husband to pay a medical bill incurred by the wife. When it was not paid, the wife sought a second order of contempt, which motion remained pending when the final judgment was entered on February 8, 1988. However, prior to proceeding to final judgment, the parties entered into a "Property Settlement Agreement," which contained releases of all claims against the other party except as provided in the agreement.

After entry of the judgment, the wife moved to hold the husband in contempt for failure to pay the subject medical bill. The trial court denied relief based upon lack of jurisdiction, which prompted the wife to file a petition for relief from judgment, based upon Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(1). The motion was granted and the husband was ordered to pay the bill. Instead, he filed a petition for writ of certiorari to this court, resulting in a denial for jurisdictional reasons. Skinner v. Skinner, 541 So.2d 176 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989). The Supreme Court of Florida accepted jurisdiction based upon a certified question, and quashed this court's decision and remanded the cause for further proceedings in Skinner v. Skinner, 561 So.2d 260 (Fla.1990). The matter is now before the court for disposition on the merits.

Appellant, husband, contends the trial court erred in granting the wife's Rule 1.540 motion for relief from the judgment and ordering payment of the medical bill for two reasons: 1) the interlocutory order directing payment of the medical bill did not survive the final judgment into which all interlocutory matters merged, and 2) the parties settled their differences and entered into a property settlement agreement specifically releasing each other from all claims except as provided in the agreement, thus barring any further claim for said bill. We agree with the husband's contentions on both scores.

The wife's motion for relief from judgment, while mentioning all of the grounds stated in the rule, was based upon her mistake in signing the property settlement agreement because she did not realize the obligation for the medical bill was released by the agreement. The law is well settled that unilateral mistakes of law such as this and misunderstanding of possible results of judicial decrees and judgments are not grounds for relief. Kuykendall v. Kuykendall, 301 So.2d 466 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974).

In Aylward v. Aylward, 420 So.2d 660 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982), the court considered a situation similar to the one presented here. In that case the husband had been ordered to pay support but he failed to make all of the payments by the time the final judgment was entered. Therefore, after judgment, the trial court held the husband in contempt for failure to pay the arrearage. The district court reversed, holding:

This was a matter which should have been brought up at the final hearing. Because the final judgment makes no reference to this matter, the wife cannot now seek to enforce compliance with the temporary order.

Id. at 661. In Duss v. Duss, 92 Fla. 1081, 111 So. 382 (1926), the Supreme Court of Florida described...