Stevens v. Stevens
| Decision Date | 19 June 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1730,86-1730 |
| Citation | 510 So.2d 332,12 Fla. L. Weekly 1521 |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
| Parties | 12 Fla. L. Weekly 1521 Robert L. STEVENS, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Madeline J. STEVENS, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. |
Daniel Joy, Sarasota, for appellant/cross-appellee.
Arthur D. Ginsburg and Shelley M. Mitchell of Ginsburg, Byrd, Jones & Dahlgaard, Sarasota, for appellee/cross-appellant.
The husband appeals and the wife cross-appeals the trial court's post-judgment order modifying a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On June 1, 1984, the trial court dissolved the parties' marriage. The final judgment approved and incorporated a marital settlement agreement previously entered into by the parties. The agreement included a paragraph 7 relating to alimony which stated in part:
The Husband shall pay to the Wife, as and for alimony, the sum of $1000.00 per month until the Wife dies or until the passage of 24 months, whichever first occurs, except that the parties agree that the Court shall reserve jurisdiction during the aforementioned two year period for the Wife to file a Petition to re-examine the financial positions of the parties for the purpose of increasing or extending the alimony due the Wife.
The agreement contemplated that the parties would sell the marital home and included a paragraph 9 which stated in part:
The wife agrees to pay the 1976 taxes, interest and penalty not to exceed $80,000.00 out of the proceeds of the sale of the former marital home located in Riegel's Landing under the conditions set forth above. 1
The home was offered for sale at $495,000; however, under threat of foreclosure, it was sold in March 1985, for $350,000. After satisfying encumbrances and paying the expenses of sale, the wife realized net proceeds in the amount of $61,360.95. She deposited $50,000 of the net proceeds into an investment account and retained the remaining $11,360.95. The $50,000 account was "frozen" by court order in May 1985, so that the funds would be available for payment of taxes as contemplated.
In April 1985, the husband sought an order to enforce certain sections of the marital settlement agreement. The wife responded with a motion seeking relief from the final judgment. She contended that the husband fraudulently misrepresented his financial position at the time of the agreement and also sought relief on the ground of mutual mistake. Further, she asked the court to enter an order pursuant to section 7 increasing and extending alimony payments and to modify section 9 of the agreement relating to her liability for the 1976 income taxes.
The trial court denied the relief requested by the husband and denied the wife's motion for relief from judgment. The court, however, ordered that the $1,000 monthly alimony payments to the wife be made permanent. In addition, the court granted the wife's motion to modify the section of the marital settlement agreement relating to liability for the 1976 income taxes by reducing her obligation to $50,000. From that order, this appeal by the husband ensued.
The husband recognizes that the alimony provision is subject to modification. He contends, however, that the court abused its discretion in its modification of that section. Further, the husband concedes the wife is not responsible for the payment of taxes beyond the $61,360.95 she received as net proceeds from the sale of the house. He argues, however, that the trial court erred in allowing her to retain the sums over and above the $50,000 set aside for the payment of the 1976 taxes.
Ordinarily, property settlement agreements are non-modifiable. § 61.14, Fla.Stat. (1985); Salomon v. Salomon, 196 So.2d 111 (Fla.1967); Coniglio v. Coniglio, 370...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Petty v. Petty, 88-549
...insofar as the support portion of the agreement is concerned. Jantzen v. Cotner, 513 So.2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Stevens v. Stevens, 510 So.2d 332, 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Kirchen, 484 So.2d at 1311; 2 H. Clark, The Law of Domestic Relations in the United States § 17.6, at 275 (1987). The......
-
Jantzen v. Cotner, 86-2633
...between them, Putnam v. Putnam, 226 So.2d 30, 31 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969), cert. denied, 234 So.2d 118 (Fla.1969); see Stevens v. Stevens, 510 So.2d 332, 333 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) ("same agreement may contain modifiable and non-modifiable elements"), 1 and that it created a non-vested, modifiable o......
-
Campbell v. Campbell
...DCA 1989); Fahs v. Fahs, 517 So.2d 136 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Flanders v. Flanders, 516 So.2d 1090 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); Stevens v. Stevens, 510 So.2d 332 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Hogshead v. Hogshead, 444 So.2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1984); Bockoven v. Bockoven, 444 So.2d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA REVERSED. HARR......