Solomon v. Solomon
| Decision Date | 19 December 1941 |
| Parties | SOLOMON v. SOLOMON. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Jan. 12, 1942.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Dade County; Worth W. Trammell judge.
J. F Gordon, of Miami, for appellant.
E. F. P Brigham, of Miami, for appellee.
An agreement was executed by husband and wife in contemplation of divorce and by its terms each was to retain the property that party owned. There was a provision that the husband should pay the taxes and insurance upon the home of the wife and should bear the expenses and fees connected with the suit. There was incorporated in the agreement a stipulation that the 'decree shall provide that the husband shall pay to the wife, $300.00 per month on the first of each * * * month' and further 'that the payments by the husband of the aforesaid sum of money and the taxes and insurance shall continue for the natural life of the wife as long as she remains unmarried.' The final decree was eventually entered and, although it contained no express provision for the payment of stipulated sums as alimony, an order was included 'that the property settlement and agreement * * * is hereby approved and ratified in all respects and incorporated by reference into this Decree and made a part hereof.' We have supplied the italics in quoting parts of the contract and the decree.
We consider the conclusion inescapable, after examining the whole plan set out in the agreement and the specific provisions with reference to payment of sums periodically and the continuance of those payments until the death or remarriage of the wife that the latter constituted alimony.
The chancellor issued an order directing the defendant (husband) to show cause why he should not be held in contempt for disobedience of the decree by failing to meet some of these payments and later discharged the rule. In this manner is presented the question whether the approval by the court of the agreement for alimony and the incorporation of it by reference without a direct order to pay the amounts justifies proceedings in contempt for failure on the part of the promisor to meet his obligation.
There can be no doubt that the court in the decree sanctioned the arrangement the parties had made between themselves anent the discharge by the husband of his legal and marital duty to support the wife even after the marriage tie was severed and until she remarried.
It is the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Riley v. Riley
...1984); Ball v. Ball, 440 So.2d 677 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983); Schminkey v. Schminkey, 400 So.2d 121 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981).6 Solomon v. Solomon, 149 Fla. 174, 5 So.2d 265 (Fla.1941); English v. Galbreath, 462 So.2d 876 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Shane v. Shane, 444 So.2d 86 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1984).7 Ball v. Ba......
-
Popper v. Popper
...in the judgment. This establishes the judgment as one ordering payment of alimony, enforceable by contempt measures. Solomon v. Solomon, 149 Fla. 174, 5 So.2d 265 (1941). ...
-
Armstrong v. Armstrong
...respective rights, duties and obligations with regard to support, property and financial matters. We relied upon Solomon v. Solomon, 149 Fla. 174, 5 So.2d 265 (1942). A part of the opinion in that case quoted in Thomas 'It seems to be the rule that where such an agreement is merely ratified......
-
Shoosmith v. Scott, 750130
...819. For cases holding to the contrary, see Holloway v. Holloway, 130 Ohio St. 214, 198 N.E. 579, 154 A.L.R. 439; and Solomon v. Solomon, 149 Fla. 174, 5 So.2d 265.' 205 Va. at 183--84, 135 S.E.2d at Here, the divorce decree approved the contract between the parties but did not incorporate ......