KATHY W. HODGE AND COMERICA BANK, AS CO-TRUSTEES OF THE LUTHER H. HODGE REVOCABLE TRUST OF 1997 AND AS CO-PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF LUTHER H. HODGE, DECEASED, APPELLANTS,
v.
ANN C. HODGE, 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 Hodge sought to recover additional funds from her ex-husband Luther Hodge's estate based on an alleged breach of a marital settlement agreement requiring him to establish an insurance trust with unspecified funding for her monthly payments. The trial court rewrote the agreement by imposing a specific funding amount based on her life expectancy, but the appellate court reversed, holding that the parties' written agreement contained no specific funding requirement and thus the husband's $10,000 contribution satisfied the agreement as written.
The court reversed, holding that there was no breach of the agreement because Luther Hodge funded the trust in compliance with the written terms, which contained no specific funding requirement. Even though Ann Hodge may have made a 'bad-bargain,' she has no right to additional payments beyond those available from the original $10,000 placed in the fund.
[1] A marital settlement agreement is enforceable as written, even if it represents a "bad bargain" for one party, absent evidence of a breach of its terms.
[2] A court errs by re-writing the terms of a marital settlement agreement to make its provisions more favorable to one party.
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“the trial judge essentially re-wrote the terms of the agreement by inserting a specific amount for the insurance trust, thereby making the agreement's terms more favorable to Ann Hodge”
Establishes that the trial court erred by imposing terms not contained in the written agreement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAnn Hodge and Luther Hodge, her ex-husband, agreed in a marital settlement agreement that he would establish an insurance trust to pay her $1,500 mont…
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 Good Faith Compliance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Ann Hodge and her former husband, Luther Hodge, the decedent, entered into a marital settlement agreement requiring Luther Hodge to establish an insurance trust that would provide, in the event of his death, a $1,500 monthly payment to Ann Hodge “until the funds are depleted, until the Wife remarries, or until the Wife dies, whichever occurs first.” The Agreement did not state how much money was to be placed into the insurance trust. Luther Hodge passed away on March 28, 1999, but prior to his death, he placed $10,000 into the insurance trust fund.
Consequently, Ann Hodge brought action against Luther Hodge’s estate, claiming that he failed to adequately fund the insurance trust since the $10,000 placed into the trust amounted to only six full monthly payments. The trial judge found that good faith fulfilment of the agreement on the husband’s part required an adequate fund and that the $10,000 that Luther Hodge placed into the trust was not “reasonable.” The trial court concluded that good faith compliance with the agreement would require the husband to fund the trust with an amount sufficient to pay Ann Hodge $1,500 monthly for the duration of her calculated life expectancy, or 16.5 years.
Accordingly, the trial court ordered the estate to fund the trust with $168,000, “the present value of the right to receive $1,500 per month for a period of 16.5 years.” We reverse, finding that the trial judge erred in re-writing the parties’ marital settlement agreement.
There was no evidence that Luther Hodge was in breach of the terms of the agreement. Luther Hodge funded the insurance trust with an amount sufficient to comply with the written requirements of the marital settlement agreement. The trial judge essentially re-wrote the terms of the agreement by inserting a specific amount for the insurance trust, thereby making the agreement’s terms more favorable to Ann Hodge. See Petracca v. Petracca, 706 So. 2d 904, 910 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (reviewing a marriage settlement agreement, the court stated “ ‘[i]f an agreement that is unreasonable is freely entered into, it is enforceable’ ”) (quoting Casto v. Casto, 508 So. 2d 380, 334 (Fla.1987)).
Therefore, even though Ann Hodge may have entered into a “bad-bargain,” she has no right to any further payments from Luther Hodge’s estate except for any amounts left unpaid from the original $10,000 placed in the fund.
REVERSED.
FARMER, STEVENSON and GROSS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- McCURDY v. J.C. Collis & Exxon Corp., 508 So. 2d 380 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987)
- Petracca v. Luca R. Petracca, 706 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)