JOHN L. FAHS, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
MARTHA JANE JONAH FAHS, 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 former husband appeals from an order modifying support provisions in a property settlement agreement incorporated into a divorce judgment. The court reverses, holding that modification was improper because even if the payments constitute modifiable alimony, the wife's circumstances improved rather than worsened, making a modification order unsupportable.
The court reversed the modification order. Under either theory—whether the payments constitute a nonmodifiable settlement of property rights or modifiable alimony—reversal was required. If the payments are a property settlement, they are nonmodifiable. If they are true alimony and thus modifiable under section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes, modification was still improper because the wife's circumstances changed for the better, not the worse.
[1] Lump sum alimony awarded in lieu of periodic permanent alimony is not modifiable.
[2] A final judgment of dissolution that expressly precludes periodic permanent alimony in favor of lump sum alimony prevents subsequent modification to permanent alimony.
Previewing 2 of 3 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“If the payments constitute a settlement of property rights, the agreement was nonmodifiable.”
Establishes the nonmodifiable nature of property settlements in divorce judgments
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceA property settlement agreement was incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The settlement agreement contained a provision fo…
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 Property Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
ORFINGER, Judge.
The former husband appeals from an order modifying the support provisions of the final judgment of dissolution of marriage.1 We reverse.
Appellant argues that the property settlement agreement incorporated into the final judgment was nonmodifiable because it represented a settlement of property rights and thus, he contends, it was error for the trial court to modify the amount of the periodic payments the former wife was to receive under the agreement. The former wife responds that the support provision in the property settlement agreement was a true alimony provision and hence modifiable upon a showing of increased need and change in circumstances. We need not decide that issue because under either view reversal is required. If the payments constitute a settlement of property rights, the agreement was nonmodifiable. Bockoven v. Bockoven, 444 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). On the other hand, if the payments are in the nature of true alimony, and thus modifiable pursuant to section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1985), it was error for the trial court to order modification because the record discloses that the wife’s circumstances changed much for the better, not the worse. Our determination of this issue makes it unnecessary to discuss the remaining issues on appeal.
REVERSED.
DAUKSCH and COWART, JJ., concur. . The order on appeal is unclear whether it was intended to replace the support provision incorporated into the final judgment or whether it intended to supplement the final judgment. A portion of the order appealed from seems to void the support provision of the final judgment, yet the parties have treated the order appealed from as supplementing the judgment. We include this footnote for the guidance of the parties because in reversing the order appealed from the parties are thereby governed by the original final judgment.