WAYNE V. PHILLIPS, APPELLANT,
v.
CAROLE D. PHILLIPS, 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.
Florida appellate court reversed a trial judge's voiding of a property settlement agreement in a dissolution case, holding that the agreement was valid where the initial trial judge found it freely entered into after full disclosure.
A property settlement agreement in a dissolution case that was found by the initial trial judge to be freely entered into after full disclosure and in the best interest of the parties cannot be voided by a subsequent judge on grounds of duress and overreaching.
[1] A property settlement agreement in a dissolution case that was found by the initial trial judge to be freely entered into after full disclosure and in the best interest o…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn a dissolution of marriage case, the trial judge approved a property settlement agreement, finding it was freely entered into after full disclosure …
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 Enforcement Of Property Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
LETTS, Judge.
In the final judgment of dissolution, the trial judge specifically found that the property settlement agreement was freely entered into by the parties after full disclosure and was in the best interest of the parties and their children. Thereafter, at a later date, when the husband sought to enforce a certain portion of the property settlement agreement, another trial judge revisited the circumstances of the agreement and held it void because it was pro cured by duress and overreaching. We are of the view that the latter judge was in error and we reverse him. Pumo v. Pumo, 405 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).
Accordingly, we remand this case. However, at this point the parties own the marital home as tenants in common and the husband is required to convey the property to the wife upon payment to him of $15,-000. The court should hold an evidentiary hearing to decide when and how the wife can raise this money; if necessary, by way of a second mortgage. If it transpires that she is not immediately capable of raising this sum, the court has the power to leave her in possession for a reasonable time which we hold shall not exceed one year from the date of this opinion.
The remainder of the final judgment is affirmed in all respects.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HERSEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ina Nepola v. Nepola, 935 So. 2d 568 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)…trial court that he had transferred the entire piece of 317 N. State Road 7 property under the terms of the marital settlement agreement between the parties. Langer v. Langer, 919 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005), and cases cited; Phillips v. Phillips, 466 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Coleman v. Coleman, 404 So. 2d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); 25A Fla. Jur.2d Family Law § 546, at 167 n. 9 (2002). We therefore reverse the order granting the husband’s motion to dismiss and remand for an evidentiary hearing. Rever…
Authorities Cited
- Anne Pumo v. Pumo, 405 So. 2d 224 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981)