EDWARD J. SEGUNA, APPELLANT,
v.
CYNTHIA A. SEGUNA, 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 marriage dissolution appeal, the husband challenges the trial court's award of temporary alimony, exclusive use of the marital residence, and attorney's fees to the wife, arguing that a valid property settlement agreement executed by the parties should have been enforced instead. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision.
The court affirmed the trial court's order, implicitly rejecting the husband's argument that the property settlement agreement precluded the award of temporary relief pending the dissolution action.
[1] A trial court errs in awarding temporary alimony, exclusive use of the marital residence, and temporary attorney's fees pending the outcome of a marriage dissolution acti…
[2] A trial court errs in failing to enforce a valid property settlement agreement in a marriage dissolution case when both parties have prayed for its enforcement and there…
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 trial court erred in its order of April 5, 1983, in awarding the wife temporary alimony pending the outcome of this action and in awarding the wife the sole and exclusive use and possession of the marital residence and in enjoining and restraining the husband from coming to or otherwise putting foot to the marital residence and in awarding temporary attorney's fees or suit money to the wife, the parties having executed a valid property settlement agreement on September 28, 1982”
Statement of the husband's primary contention on appeal—that temporary relief should not have been awarded given the existence of a valid property 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 intelligenceThe parties executed a property settlement agreement on September 28, 1982. No fraud, durress, coercion, undue influence, or overreaching was alleged …
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 Reconciliation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order in a marriage dissolution case. As follows is the point on appeal taken verbatim from the appellant’s brief.
The trial court erred in its order of April 5, 1983, in awarding the wife temporary alimony pending the outcome of this action and in awarding the wife the sole and exclusive use and possession of the marital residence and in enjoining and restraining the husband from coming to or otherwise putting foot to the marital residence and in awarding temporary attorney’s fees or suit money to the wife, the parties having executed a valid property settlement agreement on September 28, 1982, and there having been no finding by the court and no allegation by either of the parties to this action that there had been any fraud, durress, coercion, undue influence, overreaching or any other type of conduct which would have affected the validity of the property settlement agreement between the parties and the court having failed to find and the parties having failed to have alleged that there had been any reconciliation between these parties at any time after September 28,1982, and each of the parties having testified that no such reconciliation took place and that no such reconciliation was intended but either of the parties of this action and the court having specifically failed and refused to either find that there had been a reconciliation between the parties to this action and the court having specifically failed and refused to set aside the property settlement agreement between these parties which was executed on September 28, 1982, and the court furthermore erred in refusing and failing to enforce the terms and conditions of the property settlement agreement between these parties, each of the parties to this action having specifically prayed for the enforcement of the said agreement by the court.
We AFFIRM.
DAUKSCH, FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., and SHARP, JJ., concur.