JEAN A. PRATT, APPELLANT,
v.
ARDEN L. PRATT, 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.
A support provision in a final judgment of dissolution, even if incorporated from a stipulation, is subject to modification unless it explicitly states otherwise.
An ex-wife appealed the dismissal of her motion to modify a final judgment of dissolution, which incorporated a stipulation for periodic support payme…
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 Modification Of Support cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
An ex-wife appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of her motion for modification of the final judgment, requesting an extension of time for support payments from the ex-husband. We reverse.
The final judgment of dissolution incorporated a stipulation of the parties which concerned “support, attorneys’ fees and costs and settlement of rights to property.” The stipulation contained a provision that the husband would pay to the wife “periodic support” of $300 a month for thirty-six months or until the wife’s remarriage or the death of either party. It does not appear from the stipulation that this provision was in exchange for property. A support provision is subject to modification. This provision did not provide otherwise. The fact that a final judgment includes a property settlement does not preclude modification of its support provision. See Witter v. Witter, 443 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Woodworth v. Woodworth, 385 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
We do not agree with the husband’s contention that the wife’s motion was untimely. The motion was filed within the thirty-six month period provided in the final judgment for the support payments. See Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).
The order dismissing the motion is vacated and the cause is Remanded for consideration by the trial court of the motion for modification on its merits.
SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rhone v. Rhone, 505 So. 2d 586 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Pratt v. Pratt, 502 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Hoyt v. Hoyt, 457 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984). In this case, we find no difference between joint tenants by the entireties and tenants in common. We find no merit in appellant’s third point. LEHAN, A.C.J., SANDERLIN, J., and…
-
Twomey v. Twomey, 566 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)…Fla.Stat.; Wright v. Wright, 559 So. 2d 1193, 1195 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990); Glover v. Glover, 548 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989); Paulk v. Paulk, 504 So. 2d 790 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Griffin v. Griffin, 502 So. 2d 1315 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987); Pratt v. Pratt, 502 So. 2d 1001 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987); Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982); Veach v. Veach, 407 So. 2d 308 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Myrick v. Myrick, 402 So. 2d 452 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Lee v. Lee, 309 So. 2d 26 (Fla.2d 1975); Gedney v. Gedney, 117 Fla. 68…
Authorities Cited
- Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So. 2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)
- Woodworth v. Woodworth, 385 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Edwards v. Yellow CAB Co. OF Lakeland, Inc., 443 So. 2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)