DIANE FERRARO N/K/A DIANE DEIGHTON, APPELLANT,
v.
JAMES L. FERRARO, APPELLEE
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Final Judgment Of Dissolution Of Marriage cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
The former wife appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of her petition for modification of alimony. For the following reasons, we affirm.
Viewed as a whole, we. find that the language used in the parties’ post-nuptial agreement, incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, indicates a clear intention that the agreed-upon alimony provisions control and that their terms would be modifiable only as provided by the agreement. Thus, “[t]he trial court, having approved and adopted all provisions of the agreement, was without jurisdiction, and correctly refused to undertake modification. We, too, have neither the authority nor the power to alter or reform the parties’ agreement.” Agliano v. Agliano, 605 So. 2d 597, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). See also Cunningham v. Cunningham, 499 So. 2d 880, 882 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (“It is well-established that the statutory right to petition for modification of an alimony award may be intentionally or impliedly waived and that the waiver may be stated in express terms or through interpretation of the agreement as a whole.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Benitez v. Odalis D. Benitez, 976 So. 2d 75 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008)…The specific theories need not be addressed. The former husband agreed not to seek modification for any reason. He is in breach of his obligations by moving for modification. The trial court correctly dismissed the petition. See Ferraro v. Ferraro, 891 So. 2d 1211, 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Affirmed.…
Authorities Cited
- Cunningham v. Cunningham, 499 So. 2d 880 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986)
- Agliano v. Agliano, 605 So. 2d 597 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992)