DONALD MACKARAVITZ, APPELLANT,
v.
LYNDA GAMBLE MACKARAVITZ, 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.
In this dissolution of marriage case, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed a trial court's award of lump sum alimony to the wife where the parties had executed a prenuptial agreement explicitly waiving all alimony rights. The court held that the trial judge impermissibly modified the valid agreement without the required written consent of both parties.
The court held that the trial court impermissibly modified the parties' valid prenuptial agreement by awarding lump sum alimony when the agreement specifically waived any and all alimony rights and could only be modified by a writing signed by both parties. The court reversed the lump sum alimony award and the related interest award.
[1] An antenuptial agreement waiving all rights to alimony or spousal support is enforceable unless found invalid due to fraud, duress, unfairness, or unreasonableness.
[2] A trial court cannot award lump sum alimony in contravention of an antenuptial agreement that specifically waives such support, absent a finding that the agreement is inv…
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“each party forever waives any right to claim or seek any form of alimony or spousal support from the other”
The explicit waiver clause in the prenuptial agreement that the trial court violated by awarding lump sum alimony
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties married on November 7, 1992, after executing a prenuptial agreement that stated 'each party forever waives any right to claim or seek any …
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 Waiver Of Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
KARLAN, SANDY, Associate Judge.
Appellant, the Husband, appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage entered on January 6,1997. Of the numerous points on appeal, we find that two have merit.
Prior to their marriage on November 7, 1992, the parties entered into an antenuptial agreement. According to the terms of that agreement, “each party forever waives any right to claim or seek any form of alimony or spousal support from the other.” Although the trial court applied the terms of the agreement in the dissolution proceeding and found that the agreement “does not provide for the granting of rehabilitative or permanent alimony,” it nevertheless awarded the Wife lump sum alimony based upon “justification” and the Husband’s ability to pay. The justification appears to be the fact that the Wife lost money as a result of the marriage because she used her premarital money to pay the Husband’s debts. There was no finding by the trial court that the parties’ antenuptial agreement was invalid based upon fraud or duress, unfairness, or unreasonableness. See Casto v. Casto, 508 So. 2d 330 (Fla.1987). In his attempt to reimburse the Wife for money she lost during the marriage, the trial judge imper-missibly modified the parties’ agreement by awarding lump sum alimony, where the parties’ agreement specifically waived any modification unless “it was in writing signed by the parties.” See Snedaker v. Snedaker, 660 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). Accordingly, we reverse the award of lump sum alimony. We also reverse the award of interest on the payments of lump sum alimony. As to all other aspects of the final judgment, we affirm.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART.
STONE, C.J., and PARIENTE, BARBARA J., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Casto v. Casto, 508 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1987)
- Snedaker v. Snedaker, 660 So. 2d 1070 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)