FERDINAND BECKER, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY ANN BECKER, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
In this dissolution of marriage case, the trial court refused to enforce a settlement stipulation regarding the sale of the marital home, finding it lacked essential terms, and instead ordered the home sold on the open market with proceeds equally divided per the original judgment. The husband appealed, arguing his interpretation of the stipulation should have been enforced.
The trial court did not err in denying enforcement of the stipulation; the language was vague and lacked essential terms, making it unenforceable, and the court's requirement that the home be sold on the open market with equal division of proceeds was equitable.
[1] A stipulation incorporated into a final judgment of dissolution of marriage may be subject to enforcement only if it contains essential terms that are sufficiently clear.
[2] A trial court does not err in refusing to enforce a stipulation that lacks essential terms, and may instead order compliance with the initial final judgment.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the stipulation was not subject to enforcement because it lacked essential terms”
Establishes the trial court's primary basis for refusing to enforce the settlement agreement
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAfter a contested dissolution of marriage, the parties settled and incorporated a stipulation into the final judgment addressing child custody and dis…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Compel Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an interlocutory appeal from an order entered by the trial court after final judgment in a dissolution of marriage action. After the court entered final judgment in this highly contested dissolution the parties appealed but thereafter settled their differences with a stipulation regarding child custody and the disposition of the marital home. The stipulation was incorporated into the final judgment. Eventually, it became obvious that the terms of the stipulation regarding the sale of the marital home were not sufficiently clear so as to enable the parties to proceed with the sale. A dispute arose and the former husband filed a motion to compel compliance with his interpretation of the stipulation. After another contested hearing, the trial court concluded that the stipulation was not subject to enforcement because it lacked essential terms. The court ordered that the parties comply with the initial final judgment as to the sale of the home. The parties agree that this requirement is to the effect that the home be sold on the open market and the proceeds equally divided in accordance with the final judgment. The husband now appeals asserting his interpretation of the stipulation which would have allowed him to purchase the home at a lower appraised value than the value set by the wife’s appraiser. We conclude that the trial court did not commit error in denying the husband’s request for enforcement of the stipulation as he interpreted it. The language was at best vague and the final result reached by the court regarding the property appears to be equitable.
The order below is affirmed.
LETTS, C.J., and BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stebbins v. Stebbins, 435 So. 2d 383 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)…that, having passed this threshold question, increased income should be considered in setting the amount. Although the settlement may be somewhat ambiguous on that point, I think the trial judge’s interpretation should be affirmed. Becker v. Becker, 433 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Elmore v. Enterprise Developers, Inc., 418 So. 2d 1078 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982). Finally, I take issue with the majority’s statement that the trial court possibly erred in making the periodic alimony award permanent rather than reha…