ANN WINSET, F/K/A ANNA WINSET FINE, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES M. FINE, 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.
Ann Winset appeals an order denying her motion for contempt against her former husband for failing to pay his share of their son's college education and violating a property settlement agreement. The court reverses, holding that the agreement's support provisions are enforceable by contempt and that the former wife may enforce the college education provision even after the son reaches majority.
The court held that the property settlement agreement's support provisions are enforceable by contempt because the husband's commitment to operate the family business served to discharge his family support obligation. The court further held that a former wife is entitled to enforce a college education provision in a dissolution agreement against the former husband, even after the child reaches age of majority.
[1] An agreement titled a "Property Settlement Agreement" may be enforceable by contempt if it provides for the support of a spouse or child, rather than solely exchanging fi…
[2] Provisions for family support within an agreement are enforceable by contempt and may be modified upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances.
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“Despite its title, the "Property Settlement Agreement" is not a true property settlement agreement because it purports to provide for the support of the wife and the then minor son rather than to exchange financial rights and obligations.”
Establishes that the agreement functions as a support agreement rather than a property settlement, making its provisions enforceable by contempt.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnn Winset and James Fine executed a Property Settlement Agreement in connection with their dissolution. The agreement required the husband to continu…
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 Breach Of Property Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
BASKIN, Judge.
Ann Winset appeals an order denying her motion for contempt against her former husband for failing to pay his share of their son’s college education and for violating the intent of the property settlement agreement. We reverse.
Despite its title, the “Property Settlement Agreement” is not a true property settlement agreement because it purports to provide for the support of the wife and the then minor son rather than to exchange financial rights and obligations. Halpern v. Halpern, 436 So. 2d 366 (Fla.3d DCA 1983); Zuccarello v. Zuccarello, 429 So. 2d 68 (Fla.3d DCA 1983); Johnson v. Johnson, 403 So. 2d 1388 (Fla.2d DCA 1981); see also Petty v. Petty, 548 So. 2d 793 (Fla.lst DCA 1989); see generally Kuhnke v. Kuhnke, 556 So. 2d 1121 (Fla.3d DCA 1989).
The former husband agreed to continue running the family business in which the former wife has a 40% interest and the son a 20% interest. In exchange for that undertaking, the wife waived alimony and forewent support payments. The husband’s commitment served to discharge his obligation to support his family; the provisions of the support agreement are therefore properly enforceable by contempt, Zuccarello, and may be modified upon a showing of a substantial change in circumstances. Johnson. Because the husband’s actions have affected the ability of the family business to furnish support, on remand, the trial court should devise other arrangements for the wife’s support and may also consider the merits of the defense of laches.
Having found that contempt proceedings are appropriate, we address the husband’s refusal to pay his proportionate share of the son’s college education. The parties’ agreement arranged for their son’s college education. The former husband has failed to make any college education payments and argues that, despite the language in the agreement, he has no obligation to furnish a college education once his son has attained the age of majority.
Furthermore, he maintains that his son, not his former wife, is the proper party to seek enforcement of the provision.
We disagree. When parties to a dissolution proceeding agree to educate their child after the child reaches age of majority, the agreement is valid and may be enforced by either party to the agreement. Holmes v. Holmes, 384 So. 2d 1295 (Fla.2d DCA 1980); see also Kern v. Kern, 360 So. 2d 482, 486, n. 6 (Fla.4th DCA 1978) (“Nothing in this opinion should be construed as limiting the power of a court to enforce a stipulated-to agreement between the parties in a dissolution proceeding.”).
Accordingly, the former wife is entitled to seek enforcement of the agreement to provide a college education for the parties’ son, even though he has reached the age of majority. We remand for the trial court to order the husband to pay his proportionate share of the son’s college education and to reimburse the wife for sums she has already expended in excess of her obligation.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Riera v. Riera, 86 So. 3d 1163 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…3, 854 (Fla.1984). However, “[w]hen parties to a dissolution proceeding [*1168] agree to educate their child after the child reaches [the] age of majority, the agreement is valid and may be enforced by either party to the agreement.” Winset v. Fine, 565 So. 2d 794, 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990); see also Madson v. Madson, 636 So. 2d 759, 761 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994) (“Even though most financially able parents willingly assist their adult children in obtaining a higher education, any duty to do so is a moral rather than a…
-
Woolley v. Woolley, 637 So. 2d 74 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…th property distribution and support obligations. Diffenderfer v. Diffenderfer, 491 So. 2d 265, 267 (Fla.1986). Although parties to property settlement agreements may agree to terms which the trial court lacks the authority to order, Winset v. Fine, 565 So. 2d 794, 795 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), Diffenderfer supports the former husband’s contention that the parties did not intend for the former husband’s federal retirement benefits to constitute both a source of alimony and an asset subject to equitable distribution…
-
Malone v. Malone, 637 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…a. 1st DCA 1981); Blue v. Blue, 188 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). Further, a court can generally enforce provisions in marital settlement agreements even though the court could not order the same provisions absent an agreement. See Winset v. Fine, 565 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (enforcing provision of marital settlement agreement requiring husband to contribute to son’s college education even though son reached age of majority). We hold that it was error for the trial court to dismiss the former wife’s…
Authorities Cited
- Haddox v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co. & Renette Rousseau, 360 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- Kern v. Kern, 360 So. 2d 482 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978)
- Johnson v. Johnson, 403 So. 2d 1388 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981)
- Petty v. Eligia Jim Petty, 548 So. 2d 793 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989)
- Zuccarello v. Zuccarello, 429 So. 2d 68 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)
- Holmes v. Holmes, 384 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)
- Kuhnke v. Kuhnke, 556 So. 2d 1121 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- Halpern v. Halpern, 436 So. 2d 366 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)