DAVID CARLSON, APPELLANT,
v.
ANDREE CARLSON, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Settlement Agreement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The trial court construed a settlement agreement to require former husband to transfer approximately $612,000 in after-tax dollars to former wife. This construction could be supported only if the agreement were ambiguous. However, the trial court held that the agreement was not ambiguous and precluded former husband from presenting testimony that the intent of the parties’ settlement was exactly the opposite of the court’s interpretation. The ambiguity in the settlement agreement is whether the reference to “cash, investment grade securities” contemplates that such assets, when valued as they exist in retirement accounts, can be transferred to former wife by a qualified domestic relations order to meet former husband’s obligation under the agreement.
We reverse and remand to the trial court for a hearing where each side may offer extrinsic evidence on the correct interpretation of the agreement.
STONE, PARIENTE and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carlson v. Andree Carlson, 719 So. 2d 936 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…Former husband David Carlson challenges an order awarding former wife attorney’s fees in proceedings involving the enforcement and interpretation of a settlement agreement. Carlson v. Carlson, 696 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Carlson v. Carlson, 671 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). We reverse the fee award. In Rosen v. Rosen, 696 So. 2d 697 (Fla.1997) the supreme court explained that the financial resources of the parties are the primary factor to be considered when considering a fee award. The court als…
-
Carlson v. Andree Carlson, 696 So. 2d 1332 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997)…. We had previously determined that the agreement was ambiguous and reversed and remanded for the trial court to conduct a hearing where each side could offer extrinsic evidence on the correct interpretation of the agreement. See Carlson v. Carlson, 671 So. 2d 280 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The trial court’s interpretation of the settlement agreement was based on the special master’s detailed findings of fact. As this court noted in Reece v. Reece, 449 So. 2d 1295, 1295 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), “the role of the trial…
-
Klazkin v. Jaynee Richman-Klazkin, 905 So. 2d 991 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)…v. Levitt, 699 So. 2d 755, 757 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997). The purpose of an evidentiary hearing concerning ambiguous language is to allow each side to present evidence on the intent of the parties regarding the disputed provision. See Carlson v. Carlson, 671 So. 2d 280, 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996); Wagner v. Wagner, 885 So. 2d 488, 492-93 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). On July 28, 2003, the trial court held a hearing on various issues, including the mother’s request for reimbursement for summer camp expenses. On September 4, 2…