MAURICE BARRY KARCH, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERTA T. KARCH, 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.
Maurice Karch appealed a trial court's denial of his petition to modify alimony payments established in his dissolution agreement with Roberta Karch. The court affirmed, holding that alimony payments made as consideration for relinquishing property rights are non-modifiable even if labeled as alimony.
Alimony payments made as consideration for relinquishing valuable property rights are non-modifiable, even if denominated as alimony. The trial court properly denied the husband's petition for modification because the agreement was a freely bargained exchange of valuable property rights between counsel-represented parties.
[1] Payments made as consideration for the relinquishment of a valuable property right cannot be modified, even if designated as alimony.
[2] Provisions of a property settlement agreement incorporated into a final judgment of dissolution are interpreted like any other contract.
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“It is well settled that payments made as consideration for the relinquishment of a valuable property right cannot be modified, even if these payments are called "alimony."”
Establishes the core legal principle that governs the case and distinguishes modifiable alimony from non-modifiable property settlement payments.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe wife bargained away her interest in the husband's business in exchange for ownership of the marital home, money for a car down payment, and weekly…
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 Interpretation Of Contract Terms cases and more on FLexlaw
HENDRY, Judge.
The husband in this post-dissolution action appeals from the decision of the trial court, adopting the findings of the general master, which denied his petition for modification of alimony on the basis that the final judgment of dissolution incorporated a non-modifiable property settlement agreement. We affirm.
It is well settled that payments made as consideration for the relinquishment of a valuable property right cannot be modified, even if these payments are called “alimony.” Wolfe v. Wolfe, 424 So. 2d 32 (Fla.4th DCA 1982); Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So. 2d 228, 229 n. 1 (Fla.3d DCA 1982); Lau v. Lau, 407 So. 2d 927 (Fla.3d DCA 1981); Johnson v. Johnson, 403 So. 2d 1388 (Fla.2d DCA 1981).
Where an agreement purports to resolve the property rights of the parties, its provisions are to be interpreted in the same manner as any other contract. Farkas v. Farkas, 426 So. 2d 1213 (Fla.4th DCA 1983).
In the instant case the wife bargained away her interest in the husband’s business in return for ownership of the marital home, money for a downpayment on a new car, and payments, called alimony, of $100 a week. She did not sell her interest in the business for a sum certain, cf. Friedman v. Friedman, 366 So. 2d 820 (Fla.3d DCA), cert. denied, 376 So. 2d 71 (Fla.1979), neither has she taken the position that the agreement is modifiable, cf. Broudy v. Broudy, 423 So. 2d 504 (Fla.3d DCA 1982), nor accepted modification in the past and now complains of such, cf. Singer v. Singer, 442 So. 2d 1020 (Fla.3d DCA 1983) (1983).
The only modification has been the child support portion of the agreement which, unlike property settlement agreements, is always subject to judicial modification whenever there is a change in the circumstances from the time of the award. Cannon v. Morris, 407 So. 2d 372, 373 (Fla.lst DCA 1981).
See also Cherna v. Cherna, 427 So. 2d 395 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Wanstall v. Wanstall, 427 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).
We find that this property settlement was a freely bargained exchange of valuable property rights, with both parties represented by counsel, and as such, is non-modifiable.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (13 total)
-
Boyd v. Boyd, 478 So. 2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…here qualifies under neither of these exceptions. (a) Although the clause speaks of “Lump Sum Alimony,” its legal effect is determined not by what it is called, but by what it does. Underwood v. Underwood, 64 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1953); Karch v. Karch, 445 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Zuccarello v. Zuccarello, 429 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). By definition, “lump sum alimony” is a fixed and certain amount, the right to which is vested in the recipient and which is not therefore subject to increase, reduction,…
-
Langer v. Langer, 463 So. 2d 429 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…on June II, 1975. We affirm the judgment of the trial court upon a holding that: 1) property settlement agreements are not subject to modification when the agreements are incorporated into final judgments of dissolution of marriage, Karch v. Karch, 445 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Farkas v. Farkas, 426 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Horne v. Horne, 417 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), pet. for rev. denied, 429 So. 2d 6 (Fla.1983); Covin v. Covin, 403 So. 2d 490 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), and 2) appellant’s alleg…
-
Shaw v. Shaw, 448 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…roperty settlement agreement not subject to modification. See Salomon v. Salomon, 196 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1967). Support or alimony payments made as consideration for the relinquishment of valuable property rights cannot be modified. See Karch v. Karch, 445 So. 2d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984); Mills v. Mills, 339 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976); cf. Wolfe v. Wolfe, 424 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So. 2d 228, 229 n. 1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Brisco v. Brisco, 355 So. 2d 506 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978). But se…
Previewing 3 of 13 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited (11 total)
- Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Wolfe v. Wolfe, 424 So. 2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)
- Cannon v. Morris, 407 So. 2d 372 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 403 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Susanne E. Wanstall v. Wanstall, 427 So. 2d 353 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983)
- Farkas v. Farkas, 426 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Singer v. Singer, 442 So. 2d 1020 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- LAU v. LAU, 407 So. 2d 927 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)
- Friedman v. Friedman, 366 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)
- Broudy v. Broudy, 423 So. 2d 504 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)