JEWELL CALDER BLUE, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUIS DAVID BLUE, 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 court held that the trial court did not err in modifying alimony provisions based on a property settlement agreement's automatic readjustment clause triggered by a decrease in the husband's salary.
The parties' divorce decree incorporated a property settlement agreement allowing for automatic readjustment of alimony and child support if they exce…
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 Property Settlement Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal by the plaintiff, Jewell Calder Blue, from an order of the trial court modifying the alimony provisions of a final decree of divorce upon the petition of the defendant, Louis David Blue.
A final decree of divorce was granted plaintiff on May 22, 1961. The decree incorporated a property settlement agreement entered into by the parties dated April 3, 1959. The property settlement agreement provided for alimony to the plaintiff and support money for the two children born of the marriage and contained a provision to the effect that the combined allowances for alimony and child support to the wife and children should not exceed fifty per cent of the net base salary, after taxes, of the defendant. The agreement further provided that upon the net base salary of the defendant decreasing to an extent that the allowances to the wife and children amounted to more than fifty per cent of said base, the amount payable to her and the children would subject the allowance to an automatic readjustment.
The defendant, under the terms of the agreement and without court authority, readjusted the amount payable to his wife and children by decreasing the amount to reflect the provisions of the readjustment terms of the property settlement agreement. He later filed the petition for confirmation of the adjustment.
The trial judge found there was a decrease in the net base salary of the defendant and reduced the amount of the payments due the wife and children to reflect such amount in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The court declined to require payment of deficiencies from the time the defendant adjusted downward the amounts payable without order of the court.
A careful review of the record discloses that the trial judge had before him all the necessary facts on which to base his order and that amounts allowed plaintiff are in substantial compliance with the agreement between the parties. Blanton v. Blanton, 1944, 154 Fla. 750, 18 So.2d 902.
Affirmed.
SMITH, C. J., and ODOM, ARCHIE M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Malone v. Malone, 637 So. 2d 76 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)…uch agreements were directly at issue, there are cases where such agreements incorporated into the final judgment were enforced. See Adams v. Adams, 502 So. 2d 1301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987); Bish v. Bish, 404 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Blue v. Blue, 188 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966). Further, a court can generally enforce provisions in marital settlement agreements even though the court could not order the same provisions absent an agreement. See Winset v. Fine, 565 So. 2d 794 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (enforcing p…
Authorities Cited
- Blanton v. Oneida Langley Blanton, 154 Fla. 750 (Fla. 1944)
- Blue v. Jewell Calder Blue, 183 So. 2d 205 (Fla. 1966)
- Jewell Calder Blue v. Blue, 172 So. 2d 502 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965)