JUDITH COMSTOCK, APPELLANT,
v.
RANDY COMSTOCK, 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 a post-dissolution enforcement proceeding, the trial court partially enforced a mediation agreement between former spouses. The former wife appealed, arguing the agreement was unenforceable because it was never court-approved. The appellate court affirmed enforcement of property and debt provisions but dismissed the appeal regarding child custody and support as non-final.
Property, equitable distribution, and debt provisions of the mediation agreement are enforceable as binding stipulations without prior court approval. Child custody and support provisions are unenforceable without a court order determining they serve the best interests of the children. The remand of those matters for further evidentiary determinations is proper and non-appealable.
[1] A mediation agreement entered into after a final judgment of dissolution, which pertains to equitable distribution, debts, and property, is binding on the parties even wi…
[2] Child custody and child support provisions in a post-dissolution mediation agreement are not binding or enforceable until approved by the trial court upon a determination…
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“A stipulation properly entered into and relating to a matter upon which it is appropriate to stipulate is binding upon the parties and upon the Court.”
Establishes that mediation agreements on property and debt are enforceable without separate court approval
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJudith and Randy Comstock entered into a mediation agreement on February 2, 2007, after their marriage was dissolved. The agreement addressed equitabl…
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 Enforcement Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
Judith Comstock (“Former Wife”) appeals a post final judgment order entered on enforcement proceedings by the trial court after objections were made to an underlying recommended order from a magistrate. Former Wife argues that the trial court erred by entering an order enforcing a February 2, 2007, mediation agreement (“2007 mediation agreement”) which was entered into after the final judgment dissolving the marriage but never approved by the trial court. The problem presented by this appeal is that the trial court’s order remanded a significant portion of the enforcement proceeding to the magistrate for further evidentiary determinations. While we affirm the trial court’s decision concerning equitable distribution, debts, and property agreements, we dismiss Former Wife’s appeal as to matters remanded to the magistrate for further evidentiary determinations, because we lack jurisdiction.
Former Wife is incorrect that the portions of the 2007 mediation agreement pertaining to equitable distribution, debts, and property agreements are unenforceable because an order approving the agreement was never entered. “A stipulation properly entered into and relating to a matter upon which it is appropriate to stipulate is binding upon the parties and upon the Court.” Yeakle v. Yeakle, 12 So.3d 884, 885-86 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see Dorta v. Dorta, 626 So.2d 312, 313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (recognizing that property rights in post-dissolution marriage proceeding are enforceable under contract law). Therefore, we affirm the trial court’s rulings on the enforcement matters pertaining to equitable distribution, debts, and property agreements.
Former Wife is correct that the 2007 mediation agreement is nonbinding and unenforceable as to child custody and child support issues until the trial court enters an order approving the agreement as being in the best interests of the children. Feliciano v. Feliciano, 674 So.2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). The trial court correctly determined that the magistrate’s recommendations to enforce the agreement as to child support issues were improper, because the 2007 mediation agreement provisions concerning the children had never been determined to be in the best interests of the children. The trial court properly directed the magistrate to conduct further hearings to determine if the 2007 mediation agreement should be approved as being in the best interests of the children. Those portions of the trial *1096court’s order are nonfinal and nonap-pealable. Accordingly, we do not have jurisdiction to entertain an appeal of the trial court’s order regarding child custody and child support issues, and the appeal is dismissed as to only those issues. Fla. R. App. P. 9.030(b)(1)(B); Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(3).
Affirmed in Part; Dismissed in Part.
HAZOURI and GERBER, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Feliciano v. Feliciano, 674 So. 2d 937 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996)
- Carola Yeakle v. Yeakle, 12 So. 3d 884 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009)
- Freeman v. State, 626 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)
- Emile Dorta v. Dorta, 626 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)