KALLIOPE VITAKIS, APPELLANT,
v.
DAVID L. VALCHINE, 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 divorce appeal, the former wife challenged enforcement of a marital settlement agreement provision requiring her to turn over frozen embryos to her ex-husband for disposal. The trial court enforced the agreement as written, and the appellate court affirmed, rejecting the wife's argument that the husband's alleged verbal change of heart should override the written settlement terms.
The trial court properly enforced the settlement agreement as written. The provision requiring the wife to provide the frozen embryos to the husband for disposal was controlling, and the alleged oral change of heart could not override the written agreement, which expressly required any modification to be in writing signed by both parties.
[1] A marital settlement agreement, once incorporated into a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and affirmed on appeal, is generally enforceable according to its terms…
[2] A provision in a marital settlement agreement requiring one party to provide frozen embryos to the other for disposal is enforceable.
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 parties' settlement agreement included a provision that required the wife to "provide" the couple's frozen embryos to the husband so that he could dispose of them. The agreement also contained a provision providing that the agreement could not be modified except by written agreement.”
Establishes the operative terms of the settlement agreement at issue, including both the substantive provision regarding embryos and the non-modification clause
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceKalliope Vitakis and David L. Valchine divorced pursuant to a mediated marital settlement agreement that included a provision requiring the wife to pr…
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 Motion To Enforce cases and more on FLexlaw
STEVENSON, J.
The instant appeal arises from the divorce proceedings of Kalliope Vitakis and David L. Valchine. The final judgment of dissolution of marriage incorporated the terms of the parties’ mediated marital settlement agreement. The former wife appealed the final judgment, arguing that there had been mediator misconduct and that she had entered into the agreement as a consequence of duress and coercion. This court remanded the case to the trial court so that it could make factual findings regarding the wife’s claims of misconduct. See Vitakis-Valchine v. Valchine, 793 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001). On remand, the trial court found no mediator misconduct and no duress or coercion and upheld the settlement agreement; this court affirmed that ruling. See Valchine v. Valchine, 923 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006).
The parties’ settlement agreement included a provision that required the wife to “provide” the couple’s frozen embryos to the husband so that he could dispose of them. The agreement also contained a provision providing that the agreement could not be modified except by written agreement. After this court’s 2006 opinion upholding the settlement agreement, the husband filed a motion seeking to enforce the provision of the agreement requiring the wife to turn over to him the couple’s frozen embryos. The wife insisted that the settlement agreement should not control because, during the pendency of the appeals, the husband had a “change of heart” and indicated he would turn the embryos over to her; the wife acknowledged, though, that there was no writing, signed by the parties, modifying the terms of the settlement agreement. The trial court granted the husband’s motion, finding the issue was controlled by the terms of the settlement agreement. We find no error in such ruling and affirm the order appealed.
Affirmed.
GROSS and MAY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Kalliope Vitakis-Valchine v. Valchine, 793 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. 4th DCA 2001)