JANET VELLEFF, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS KARL VELLEFF, 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.
Janet Velleff appealed the trial court's order terminating alimony payments from her former husband Thomas Karl Velleff. The Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, affirmed the denial of attorney's fees but reversed the termination order, holding that the parties' marital settlement agreement established permanent periodic alimony rather than lump sum alimony.
The court held that the MSA established permanent periodic alimony, not lump sum alimony, and therefore the trial court erred in terminating the Former Husband's alimony obligation. The court affirmed the denial of attorney's fees as to the first issue, finding no error in the record.
[1] A party must preserve an argument regarding attorney's fees to be heard on appeal.
[2] When interpreting a written instrument, courts should give effect to each provision to ascertain the true meaning of the instrument.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“When possible, courts should give effect to each provision of a written instrument in order to ascertain the true meaning of the instrument.”
Establishes the principle that contracts must be interpreted as a whole, not in isolation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe marital settlement agreement between the parties provided that the Former Husband could either pay $400,000 as lump sum alimony or pay permanent p…
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 Marital Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
Janet Velleff ("Former Wife") appeals the order entered by the trial court terminating the alimony payments made to her by Thomas Karl Velleff ("Former Husband"). Former Wife raises two arguments, contending that the trial court erred in: 1) denying her motion for attorney's fees without holding a separate evidentiary hearing on the matter and 2) misinterpreting the alimony provisions of the parties' marital settlement agreement ("MSA"). Because Former Wife failed to preserve her argument regarding attorney's fees and the record does not demonstrate that the trial court erred, we affirm as to the first issue without further discussion.
The second issue turns on whether the MSA provided for lump sum alimony or permanent periodic alimony. "When *1180possible, courts should give effect to each provision of a written instrument in order to ascertain the true meaning of the instrument." Inter-Active Servs., Inc. v. Heathrow Master Ass'n, 721 So.2d 433, 435 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). The MSA provided in pertinent part that Former Husband "shall either pay the Wife the sum of $400,000.00 as lump sum alimony or start paying permanent periodic alimony of $4,000.00 per month." Former Husband had the option of making one or more $100,000 payments, each of which would "reduce the monthly amount of permanent periodic alimony by $1,000.00 per month."1 Former Husband chose to make monthly payments rather than pay an initial lump sum and did not avail himself of the provision allowing him to reduce his periodic payments.
We conclude that, when all the provisions of the MSA are considered, the intent of the parties was to establish permanent periodic alimony. See Avellone v. Avellone, 951 So.2d 80, 83 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007) ("A court must not isolate a single term or group of words and read that part in isolation.... Rather, the goal is to arrive at a reasonable interpretation of the text of the entire agreement in order to accomplish the agreement's stated meaning and purpose."). The MSA appears to have been structured with the intent of incentivizing Former 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 terminating Former Husband's alimony obligation to Former Wife and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; REMANDED.
SAWAYA, EVANDER and EISNAUGLE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hollinger v. Hollinger, 292 So. 3d 537 (Fla. 5th DCA 2020)…o. 2d 80, 84 (Fla. 2000) (further citations omitted)). Stated slightly differently, courts, when possible, “should give effect to each provision of a written instrument in order to ascertain the true meaning of the instrument.” Velleff v. Velleff, 236 So. 3d 1179 (Fla. 5th DCA 2018) (quoting Inter-Active Servs., Inc. v. Heathrow Master Ass’n, 721 So. 2d 433, 435 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)). Applying these rules of construction to all of the provisions contained in Paragraph 2 of the Agreement leads us to conclude…
Authorities Cited
- Inter-Active Servs., Inc. v. Heathrow Master Ass'n, Inc., 721 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998)
- Avellone v. Avellone, 951 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007)
- Frederick J.C. Vyfvinkel v. Vyfvinkel, 135 So. 3d 384 (Fla. 5th DCA 2014)