Sosnowitz v. Sosnowitz, 76--1800
Decision Date | 01 February 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 76--1800,76--1800 |
Citation | 342 So.2d 524 |
Parties | Irma SOSNOWITZ, Appellant, v. Robert Barry SOSNOWITZ, Appellee. |
Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Neil Flaxman, Miami, for appellant.
Fine & Brownstein, Miami, for appellee.
Before HENDRY, C.J., NATHAN, J., and DREW, E. HARRIS (Ret.), Associate Judge.
The interlocutory appeal is by the wife from an order of the trial court denying her motion to enforce the terms of a property settlement agreement incorporated in a final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered in 1972.
The sole issue presented on this appeal is the construction of the following portion of the property settlement agreement under the heading, 'Alimony to Wife':
(Emphasis added)
In 1976, the husband exercised his option and filed a certified audit reflecting the income and expenses of the property.
The husband's audit included those items of expense enumerated in the agreement, plus professional fees, utilities and auto usage. The wife contends by motion to enforce final judgment that these additional items of expense were not included in the definition of net income according to the agreement incorporated in the final judgment because the language of that agreement limits the type of expenses to be deducted in making a determination of net income. The trial court found that the expenses enumerated in the property settlement agreement were words of description or explanation and not words of limitation, and accepted the husband's accounting.
Generally, where a property settlement agreement has been executed prior to a dissolution of marriage, purporting to resolve the property rights of the parties, the provisions therein are to be interpreted by the courts like any other contract. Davis v. Davis, 301 So.2d 154 (Fla.3d DCA 1974). Where, as here,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bingemann v. Bingemann, 89-197
...839 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) rev. denied, 506 So.2d 1042 (Fla.1987); Bacardi v. Bacardi, 386 So.2d 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980); Sosnowitz v. Sosnowitz, 342 So.2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 352 So.2d 174 (Fla.1977). Fundamental to contract interpretation is the rule that contract terms will be g......
-
Brandt v. Brandt, 4-86-1881
...the parties intended that the appellant would be entitled to reimbursement out of the net proceeds of the sale. See Sosnowitz v. Sosnowitz, 342 So.2d 524 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 352 So.2d 174 (Fla.1977). There is no reason to impose upon joint co-owners the extra burden of proving a qu......
-
Petty v. Petty, 88-549
...will treat the written instrument as evidence of the meaning of the contract and the parties' intention thereto. Sosnowitz v. Sosnowitz, 342 So.2d 524, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA), cert. denied, 352 So.2d 174 The alimony provision at issue in this case was part of an overall child custody and propert......
-
Aouate v. Hotel Europe, Inc., 3D00-928.
...in excluding the proffered testimony as parol evidence where the terms at issue were clear and unambiguous. Sosnowitz v. Sosnowitz, 342 So.2d 524, 525 (Fla. 3d DCA)(holding that where the terms of an agreement are clear and unambiguous, the agreement itself is the best evidence of the speci......