FREDERICK J.C. VYFVINKEL, APPELLANT,
v.
CAROL W. VYFVINKEL N/K/A CAROL DAGNY WILLIAMS, 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.
Frederick Vyfvinkel appeals from an order interpreting an alimony adjustment clause tied to the Consumer Price Index (CPI). The court held that the CPI adjustment language requires cumulative annual adjustments to protect the alimony amount from erosion by inflation, rather than allowing the ex-spouse to apply only the current year's CPI rate to the original amount.
The agreement requires cumulative annual CPI adjustments. Each year's adjustment must account for the cumulative effect of all prior years' inflation, so that the alimony payment is protected from erosion by inflation rather than potentially reduced by deflation or lower inflation in subsequent years.
[1] Contractual language is ambiguous only if it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation.
[2] Where one interpretation of a contract would be absurd and another would be consistent with reason and probability, the contract should be interpreted in the rational man…
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“Alimony shall continue at $4,000.00 per month to be increased only annually beginning January, 2012, at the rate of the "Consumer Price Index" ("CPI") as such CPI is published from time to time by the U.S. Government.”
The actual contractual language at issue regarding how the alimony adjustment is to be calculated
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 entered into a stipulation requiring monthly alimony of $4,000 to be increased annually beginning January 2012 based on the CPI rate publi…
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 Consumer Price Index cases and more on FLexlaw
Frederick J.C. Vyfvinkel appeals from an order finding that he was not entitled to a cumulative annual inflation adjustment to his alimony payment based on the language of the contractual stipulation entered between the parties and adopted in the court’s final judgment. The parties’ agreement provided that:
Alimony shall continue at $4,000.00 per month to be increased only annually beginning January, 2012, at the rate of the “Consumer Price Index” (“CPI”) as such CPI is published from time to time by the U.S. Government. The parties shall utilize the CPI rate as reflected in the last published United States CPI rate for the year ending before the annual January change date. (Example: First change date January 1, 2012; therefore use last published CPI rate closest to December 31, 2011, and so on from year to year).
The trial court adopted Appel-lee’s interpretation of this language and held that each year Appellee was permitted to multiply the one-year CPI rate stipulated in the agreement by the original $4,000.00, to calculate the alimony amount for the new year. For example, if CPI for 2011 had been three percent, the formula would have yielded an alimony payment of $4,120.001 during 2012. For 2013, according to Appellee, if CPI for 2012 had been two percent, she was entitled to essentially wipe out the adjustment for the prior year and reduce the 2013 alimony payment to $4,080.00 ($4,000.00 + [$4,000.00 x 2%] = $4,080.00). We read the agreement as requiring an adjustment that takes into account the cumulative effect of inflation, so that (using the hypothetical CPI numbers in this paragraph) the 2013 alimony payment would be $4,200.00 ($4,000.00 + [$4,000.00 x (3% +2%)]). Given the arguments made on appeal,2 this is the only reasonable reading of the quoted language. As explained in BED Twenty-One Management Co. v. Delsordo, 127 So.3d 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012):
“[a] true ambiguity does not exist [in a contract] merely because [the] contract can possibly be interpreted in more than one manner. Indeed, fanciful, inconsistent, and absurd interpretations of plain language are always possible. It is the duty of the trial court to prevent such interpretations.” Am. Med. Int’l, Inc. v. Scheller, 462 So.2d 1, 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Accordingly, contractual language is ambiguous only if it is susceptible to more than one reasonable in*386terpretation. See Penzer v. Transportation Ins. Co., 29 So.3d 1000, 1005 (Fla.2010). It thus follows that where one interpretation of a contract would be absurd and another would be consistent with reason and probability, the contract should be interpreted in the rational manner. King v. Bray, 867 So.2d 1224, 1227 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004).
Id. at 530.
Here, reason and probability lead us to conclude that the CPI adjustment language in the agreement was intended to protect the negotiated alimony amount from erosion by inflation. The language should be read in a manner that will actually accomplish, rather than defeat, that intended purpose. Id. As such, we reverse the order on appeal and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
TORPY, C.J., and BERGER, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Pial Holdings, Ltd v. Riverfront Plaza, LLC, 379 So. 3d 547 (Fla. 6th DCA 2024)…ller, 462 So. 2d 1, 7 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). Therefore, where one interpretation of a contract would be absurd and another would be consistent with reason and probability, we will interpret the contract in the rational manner. Vyfvinkel v. Vyfvinkel, 135 So. 3d 384, 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). Based on this record before us, the Guarantee is ambiguous. “A guaranty is a promise to pay the debt of another on the default of the person primarily liable for payment or performance.” Fort Plantation Invs., LLC v. Iron…
-
Nabbie v. Orlando Outlet Owner, LLC, 237 So. 3d 463 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…of no effect." Id. (quoting Herian v. Se. Bank, N.A. , 564 So. 2d 213, 214 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) ). Furthermore, a contract's "language is ambiguous only if it is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation." [*467] Vyfvinkel v. Vyfvinkel , 135 So. 3d 384, 385 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014) (quoting BKD Twenty-One Mgmt. Co. v. Delsordo, 127 So. 3d 527, 530 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) ). "A true ambiguity does not exist [in a contract] merely because [the] contract can possibly be interpreted in more than one manner. In…
-
Velleff v. Velleff, 236 So. 3d 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018)…ormer Husband to make large lump sum payments as an alternative to paying monthly permanent periodic alimony. "The language should be read in a manner that will actually accomplish, rather than defeat, that intended purpose." Vyfvinkel v. Vyfvinkel, 135 So. 3d 384, 386 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014). Because the MSA established permanent periodic alimony rather than lump sum alimony, the trial court erred in holding that Former Husband had fulfilled his alimony obligation. We accordingly reverse the trial court's order…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Am. Med. Int'l, Inc. v. Zbigniew Scheller, 462 So. 2d 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)
- Penzer v. Transp. Ins. Co., 29 So. 3d 1000 (Fla. 2010)
- BKD Twenty-One Mgmt. Co., Inc. v. Delsordo, 127 So. 3d 527 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)
- King v. Bray, 867 So. 2d 1224 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)
- State v. Rigoberto Fernandez, 127 So. 3d 527 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010)