THOMAS H. HALL, JR., APPELLANT,
v.
MYRTLE H. HALL, 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 property settlement dispute, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed an order requiring the husband to pay delinquent real property taxes on two parcels of land held jointly with the wife, finding the tax obligation fell within his agreement to maintain and support the wife and children in the manner established since separation.
The court affirmed that the husband must pay the delinquent taxes on the family home parcel as part of his maintenance and support obligations. The court also affirmed the requirement to pay taxes on the vacant parcel, but without prejudice to the husband's right to seek contribution from the wife as a co-tenant.
“Property settlement agreements made between husband and wife are valid and legal and should be construed and interpreted as other contracts.”
Establishes the foundational principle that divorce property agreements are treated as ordinary contracts subject to standard contract interpretation rules.
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 divorced in January 1959 and owned two parcels of land as tenants in common: one with a family home and duplex, and one vacant parcel. The…
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 Breach Of Property Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
Defendant seeks review of an order on rule to show cause in a case involving an alleged failure by the defendant to comply with the terms of a property settlement agreement which was entered into on December 24, 1958, and incorporated into a final decree of divorce on January 8, 1959.
At the time of their separation, the parties owned as tenants by the entireties, and after their divorce as tenants in common, two parcels of land. One parcel contained the family home and a duplex. The other was undeveloped and vacant. Under the terms of paragraph two of the settlement agreement, this property was to be sold, 50% of the net proceeds going to each party, and plaintiff being allowed to live in the home until its sale, defendant to “continue to make all mortgage payments on said property and to maintain and support the First Party and the minor children of the parties in the identical manner that they have been maintained and supported since the separation of the parties.”
On March 10, 1961, plaintiff filed a petition for rule to show cause against defendant, charging that he was delinquent, inter alia, in paying real property taxes on the two parcels of property held by the parties as tenants in common which he had agreed to pay under the terms of the settlement agreement. Though payment of taxes was not specifically provided for in the agreement, plaintiff’s position before the chancellor, and on appeal, was that payment of these taxes by defendant was contemplated by that portion of the agreement requiring defendant to support plaintiff and the minor children in the identical manner that they had been maintained and supported since the separation of the parties.
After hearing, the chancellor entered the order appealed, finding that defendant was obligated to pay plaintiff $957.27 on delinquent taxes paid by plaintiff upon the sale of the family home and property, and $269.-84 in taxes on the vacant parcel which had not as yet been disposed of.
Property settlement agreements made between husband and wife are valid and legal and should be construed and interpreted as other contracts. Clark v. Clark, Fla.1955, 79 So.2d 426; Kroll v. Kroll, Fla.App.1958, 105 So.2d 495; Pentland v. Pentland, Fla.App.1959, 113 So.2d 872. In construing contracts, the court’s concern is to determine the intention of the parties from the language used, objects to be accomplished, other provisions in the agreement which might shed light upon the question and the occasion and circumstances under which it was entered into. Clark v. Clark, supra; Coast Cities Coaches, Inc. v. Whyte, Fla.App. 1958, 102 So.2d 848. On appeal, there is a presumption that the construction placed upon a contract by the chancellor is correct and where the appellate court has no clear conviction that this construction is erroneous, it should affirm. Clark v. Clark, supra; Limar Realty Corporation v. Cain & Bultman, Inc., Fla.App. 1958, 104 So.2d 54.
As to the parcel containing the family home, a study of the record fails to clearly establish that the chancellor erred in construing the settlement agreement to mean that taxes should be paid by defendant as part of the maintenance and support enjoyed by plaintiff since the separation of the parties and as to this parcel the order of the chancellor is affirmed.
As to the vacant parcel, there is no intent apparent in the agreement or the record that the taxes be paid by defendant as a part of maintenance and support. However, we affirm this portion of the order appealed insofar as it requires defendant to pay these taxes, but do so without prejudice to his right, upon payment, to *434seek contribution from plaintiff as a co-tenant. See Jones v. Carpenter, 90 Fla. 407, 106 So. 127, 43 A.L.R. 1409; Meckler v. Weiss, Fla.1955, 80 So.2d 608.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (17 total)
-
Murphy v. Murphy, 370 So. 2d 403 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…idence in the cause. Here, the trial judge determined the intention of the parties in the making of the agreement and the appellant has failed to [*408] show wherein this determination of the intention of the contract is erroneous. Cf. Hall v. HaLl, 135 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Appellant-husband’s second point urges in general terms that the evidence does not support the final judgment. The argument under this point is directed to a review of the evidence of the mortgage upon the Ponce de Leon Boulevar…
-
Rylander v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 302 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974)…he language used in the instrument and the objects to be accomplished and unless clearly erroneous, the construction placed upon a contract by the trial judge should be affirmed. Clark v. Clark, Fla. 1955, 79 So. 2d 426; Hall v. Hall, Fla.App. 1961, 135 So. 2d 432; Trail Burger King, Inc. v. Burger King of Miami, Inc., Fla.App. 1966, 187 So. 2d 55. After a close examination of the subject contract, we conclude that the trial judge’s construction thereof was correct. Further, the appellant having failed to com…
-
Critchlow v. Williamson, 450 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984)…r separation, that the SECOND PARTY' has no right to claim alimony or support from the FIRST PARTY. In interpreting prenuptial agreements, the courts are guided by the same principles which control the construction of other contracts. Hall v. Hall, 135 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961). Where a contract is clear and unambiguous, it is the best evidence of the intent of the parties and its meaning and legal effect are questions of law for determination by the court alone. Innkeepers Inter., Inc. v. McCoy Motels,…
Previewing 3 of 17 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Morgan F. Jones in Bankr. of Jacksonville Bread Co. v. Carpenter, 106 So. 127 (Fla. 1925)
- Alyce Clark v. Clark, 79 So. 2d 426 (Fla. 1955)
- Coast Cities Coaches, Inc. v. Whyte, 102 So. 2d 848 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Meckler v. Weiss, 80 So. 2d 608 (Fla. 1955)
- Pentland v. Pentland, 113 So. 2d 872 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)
- Limar Realty Corp. v. Cain & Bultman, Inc., 104 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)
- Kroll v. Kroll, 105 So. 2d 495 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)