Woolley v. Woolley, 93-708
| Decision Date | 20 May 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-708,93-708 |
| Citation | 637 So.2d 74 |
| Parties | 19 Fla. L. Weekly D1133 Douglas J. WOOLLEY, Appellant, v. Delores WOOLLEY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Julie F. Weinberger, Kissimmee, for appellant.
Michael R. Walsh, Orlando, for appellee.
Douglas J. Woolley (the former husband) appeals the final order of the trial court which denied his motions for clarification and enforcement of the final judgment dissolving the parties' marriage. 1 We reverse because the trial court erred in failing to give effect to the provisions of the parties' property settlement agreement.
The trial court entered its final judgment of dissolution of marriage in December 1987. The final judgment approved, adopted, and incorporated by reference the parties' property settlement agreement dated November 17, 1987. Relative to the present appeal, the parties' property settlement agreement provided:
Husband shall pay as alimony, periodic monthly payments totaling not more than twenty five percent (25%) of Husband's net take home salary and retirement take home salary. Said payments shall be tendered by Husband directly to Wife. In addition, Wife shall receive twenty five percent (25%) of all IRS refunds if any. At the time Wife remarries or becomes self supporting the monthly alimony payments shall terminate.
The agreement also divided the parties' marital assets and indicated that the parties had attempted to divide their jointly-owned property equally. The provisions concerning property division failed to mention the retirement benefits which are the subject of the current dispute. In signing the agreement, however, each party agreed to renounce
any and every claim of whatsoever character, which he or she now has or may hereafter claim to have arising out of or resulting from the marital relationship, upon or against the other party hereto, or upon or against the property of the other whether real, personal or mixed and wheresoever situated, now owned or hereafter acquired by the other party.
In February 1992, the former husband filed a motion for clarification of the parties' property settlement agreement. By his motion, the former husband sought an order clarifying that, by signing the property settlement agreement, the former wife, Delores Woolley, waived any right or statutory entitlement to any portion of the former husband's federal retirement benefits. The former husband later filed an amended motion for clarification and motion to enforce final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The amended motion asserted that, since the former husband's retirement in February 1992, the former wife had been receiving 50% of the former husband's net retirement benefits. The motion explained that the administrators of the retirement benefits were distributing 50% of the net benefits to the former wife because the parties' property settlement agreement failed to specifically dispose of the retirement benefits. The former husband requested an order clarifying that the former wife was entitled to receive only 25% of the former husband's retirement benefits in accordance with the alimony provision of the property settlement agreement.
At the hearing on the motions for clarification and enforcement, the trial court declined to hear testimony offered by the former husband concerning the parties' intent with regard to distribution of the retirement benefits. The trial court subsequently entered an order denying the former husband's motions, and the former husband appealed.
In dissolution proceedings, retirement benefits may be considered as a source of payment of permanent periodic alimony or as an asset subject to equitable distribution; trial courts are prohibited from considering the same retirement fund in calculating both...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Encarnacion v. Encarnacion
...Dickinson v. Dickinson, 746 So.2d 1253 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). 3. Smilack v. Smilack, 858 So.2d 1072 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Woolley v. Woolley, 637 So.2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). ...
-
Van Epps v. Hartzell, 5D05-4511.
...960, 963 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) ("A court may clarify what is implicit in a final judgment, and enforce the judgment."); Woolley v. Woolley, 637 So.2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). ...
-
Miller v. Miller
...and to enforce a final judgment of dissolution was sufficiently final that a motion for rehearing was authorized. Woolley v. Woolley, 637 So.2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994). In Woolley, the former husband filed a motion seeking an order clarifying that, by signing the parties' property settlement......
-
Viera v. Viera, 96-1597
...Therefore, the trial court was constrained to treat the former husband's retirement pay as a source of alimony. See Woolley v. Woolley, 637 So.2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (holding pursuant to property settlement agreement incorporated into final judgment of dissolution, wife entitled to recei......
-
Alternative dispute resolution and settlement
...accordance with increases in husband’s salary, provision is enforceable even though court could not have ordered it); Woolley v. Woolley, 637 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)(parties may agree to terms in agreement which trial court lacks authority to order).] For each provision suggested by t......
-
Equitable distribution and property issues
...ISSUES §15:107 Florida Family Law and Practice 15-48 not err in treating pension as source of income for support); Woolley v. Woolley, 637 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (trial courts are prohibited from considering same retirement fund in calculating both property distribution and support o......