PATRICIA COLLINS, APPELLANT,
v.
RICHARD T. MILAZZO, 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.
The trial court has jurisdiction to enforce provisions of a marital settlement agreement incorporated into a final judgment of dissolution.
Appellant sought to enforce provisions of a marital settlement agreement regarding personal property distribution, which was incorporated into a final…
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.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant seeks review of a final order denying her motion to enforce provisions regarding distribution of personal property which are a part of a marital settlement agreement incorporated into a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. The trial court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to enforce those provisions. We disagree and, accordingly, reverse.
The determinative issue presented by appellant’s motion is which of the parties is entitled, pursuant to the marital settlement agreement, to items of personal property listed on an exhibit to appellant’s motion. Contrary to the trial court’s ruling, it clearly possessed jurisdiction to enforce the provisions of the marital settlement agreement regarding distribution of property, which had been incorporated by reference into the final judgment. E.g., Kennedy v. Kennedy, 638 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994).
On remand, we direct the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the provisions of the marital settlement agreement regarding distribution of property have been violated, as alleged by appellant. Should the trial court conclude that a violation has occurred, it is directed to determine what remedy would be most appropriate to enforce the agreement. Of course, because the dispute is over distribution of property, contempt is not available. E.g., Taylor v. Taylor, 653 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995).
REVERSED and REMANDED, with directions.
ERVIN, MINER and WEBSTER, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Montanez v. Montanez, 697 So. 2d 184 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)…s not an appropriate enforcement mechanism, trial court could use other remedies such as judgment for arrear-ages to enforce former wife’s guarantee to pay former husband under a promissory note executed by a third party); accord Collins v. Milazzo, 670 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Kennedy v. Kennedy, 638 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994); Golub v. Golub, 336 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Accordingly, our reversal is without prejudice to the former wife availing herself of any other legal means of enforcing t…
-
Swain v. Swain, 783 So. 2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001)…order because they purport to find the former husband in contempt for failing to comply with provisions of the settlement agreement relating to property distribution, and contempt may not be used to enforce such provisions. E.g., Collins v. Milazzo, 670 So. 2d 1152 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Taylor v. Taylor, 653 So. 2d [*345] 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). We also reverse the portion of the order which awards attorney fees to the former wife because there are no findings regarding her need for such an award. E.g., Plant…
Authorities Cited
- Kennedy v. Kennedy, 638 So. 2d 577 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994)
- Taylor v. Taylor, 653 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)