JOHN FORTE, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY FORTE, APPELLEE

Fla. 3d DCA | 1985-11-12
No. 85-1429
Before SCHWARTZ, C.J., and HUB-BART and BASKIN, JJ.
478 So. 2d 460 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (1985) Positive Treatment
Cited by 3 cases
Opinion of the Court
SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The trial court correctly held that, in contrast to the provision of the parties’ separation agreement and the final judgment of dissolution requiring the husband to provide a home for the wife and children, which we held in Forte v. Forte, 320 So. 2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 351 So. 2d 406 (Fla.1977), was a modifiable aspect of child support, the portion which grants the wife an option to purchase the home conferred a vested property right which is for that reason not subject to modification. Farkas v. Farkas, 426 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); see Peacock v. Peacock, 439 So. 2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Accordingly, the order dismissing the husband’s application for modification of the option is

Affirmed.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Kuhnke v. Kuhnke, 556 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
    …of child support, Coffin v. Coffin, 368 So. 2d 105 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979); see also § 61.14, Fla.Stat. (1975), they do not justify modification of a property settlement agreement. This court has ruled in accordance with existing law. In Forte v. Forte, 478 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1986), we held that a portion of a separation agreement and final judgment of dissolution granting the wife the option to purchase the marital home conferred a vested property right which was no…
  • Sheila v. McCUTCHEON, 928 So. 2d 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006)
    …and proved. Underwood v. Underwood, 64 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1953); Miller v. Miller, 149 Fla. 722, 7 So. 2d 9 (1942); Farkas v. Farkas, 426 So. 2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); Zakoor v. Zakoor, 240 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970). As such, in Forte v. Forte, 478 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), we held that a portion of a separation agreement and final judgment of dissolution granting the wife the option to purchase the marital home conferred a vested property right which was not subject to modification. See also Finsto…
  • Denis Patrick Power v. Caitlin Barry Power, 864 So. 2d 523 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
    …overreaching, it could not be modified by the trial court because the option had become a vested property right. See also Campbell v. Campbell, 615 So. 2d 879 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993); Draper v. Draper, 604 So. 2d 946 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992); Forte v. Forte, 478 So. 2d 460 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985), review denied, 488 So. 2d 830 (Fla.1986). Thus, in the case before us if the option granted by the final judgment (as opposed to a property settlement agreement), and exercised by Mr. Powers became a vested property right, the tr…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw