HARRY B. GRABOW, APPELLANT,
v.
SUSAN GRABOW, 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.
The court held that a settlement agreement allowing modification for changed circumstances must be modified when such changes are found.
The trial court found substantial changes in the parties' financial circumstances but denied modification based on the agreement's silence regarding m…
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 Change In Circumstances cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
In Grabow v. Grabow, 419 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982), this court held that the support provisions of the settlement agreement were modifiable. Upon remand the trial court entered an order stating in part:
12. That, while it is clear that there has been a substantial and meaningful change in the financial circumstances of both parties since the execution of the Agreement and the entry of the Final Judgment, HARRY’S income and ability to pay having increased dramatically and SUSAN’S needs having also greatly increased, the Agreement is silent in respect to a Modification in the event of change of circumstances. Accordingly, it is presumed that the parties contemplated such contingencies when they provided for additional support geared to HARRY’S increased income. Thus, SUSAN’S Motion for Modification must be denied.
The wife appeals; we reverse.
The settlement agreement clearly states:
This agreement may be modified by mutual consent in writing by both the husband and wife or by any proper Court due to a change in circumstances of either party.
By agreement of the parties the court could, upon finding a change of circumstances, modify the agreement. Having found “a substantial and meaningful change in the financial circumstances of both parties,” the trial judge was required to grant modification.
The wife concedes that the trial court’s award of attorney’s fees to the wife was excessive. Upon remand the trial court is directed to reassess the award based upon the criteria contained in section 61.16, Florida Statutes (1981).
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
White v. Bacardi, 446 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…ony award is incorporated into a divorce decree as part of a true property settlement agreement between the parties, however, the amount may be modified due to a change in circumstances only if the agreement itself so provides. See Grabow v. Grabow, 442 So. 2d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). . We do not decide whether the income of a spendthrift trust may be reached to support a wife where there has been no dissolution of marriage, or where there are dependent children. On those questions, public policy may be clear…
-
Levin v. Levin, 613 So. 2d 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…present ability to earn more, nor is there any suggestion by the court that Appellant should change his occupation. Having found that the change in circumstances occurred, the trial court was required to modify the judgment. E.g., Grabow v. Grabow, 442 So. 2d 262, 263 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). The extent of such a modification should be based on the criteria found in section 61.16, Florida Statutes. E.g. Mirsky v. Mirsky, 474 So. 2d 9, 10 (Fla. 5th DCA 1985). The only basis the trial court gave for failing to mod…
Authorities Cited
- Grabow v. Grabow, 419 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)