RONALD L. ALBERT, APPELLANT,
v.
JOAN ALBERT, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a lower court's interpretation of an ambiguous property settlement agreement in a divorce case and upheld the denial of attorney's fees for the former wife.
1. The language of the property settlement agreement was ambiguous. 2. The former wife was not entitled to attorney's fees for proceedings concerning a business matter.
“We have examined the record and hold that the chancellor correctly found the language to be ambiguous.”
Establishes the court's finding regarding the ambiguity of the property settlement agreement.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceFollowing a final divorce decree, the former husband appealed the chancellor's interpretation of a property settlement agreement, arguing it was unamb…
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 Attorney'S Fees In Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
This interlocutory appeal is from an order which was entered after a final divorce decree. The appellant, former husband, urges error upon the chancellor’s interpretation of a section of a property settlement agreement. The substance of his appeal is that there is no ambiguity in the instrument and that therefore the construction given by the court is erroneous. We have examined the record and hold that the *810chancellor correctly found the language to be ambiguous. The construction placed on the language by the chancellor has not been shown to be clearly erroneous. We therefore affirm upon the rule stated in Williams v. Ray, 107 Fla. 327, 144 So. 679 (1932).
The appellee, former wife, has cross assigned error upon the court’s refusal to allow her an attorney’s fee upon the proceedings in the lower court. Inasmuch as the petition for rule to show cause and the proceedings thereon primarily concern a business matter between the parties, the chancellor correctly determined that there was no basis for an attorney’s fee. Cf., Mouyois v. Mouyois, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 718.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Howard v. Howard, 467 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)…, Inc. v. Poultry, Inc., 258 So. 2d 478 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), 85 Fla.Jur.2d, Family Law, § 385. The construction placed by the court on an ambiguously worded agreement will be sustained on appeal unless shown to be clearly erroneous. Albert v. Albert, 186 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966). Since the negotiation provision of the handwritten contract was ambiguous, the court properly admitted testimony in order to determine whether the parties intended the contract as a final property settlement that could be renego…
-
Thomas F.B. Plant v. Plant, 504 So. 2d 44 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…on Pending Motions.1 Bowen v. Bowen, 471 So. 2d 1274 (Fla.1985); Brown v. Brown, 484 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 4th [*45] DCA 1986); Massey v. Massey, 443 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); Holmes v. Holmes, 384 So. 2d 1295 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Albert v. Albert, 186 So. 2d 809 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966); see Martinez v. Martinez, 383 So. 2d 1153, 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (ambiguities in support provisions of settlement agreement are interpreted according to the best interests of the children involved). We reverse, however, that p…
Authorities Cited
- Mouyois v. Anne Mouyois, 97 So. 2d 718 (Fla. 3d DCA 1957)
- Williams v. Ray, 107 Fla. 327 (Fla. 1932)