DOROTHY M. GILLOTTE, APPELLANT,
v.
THOMAS F. GILLOTTE, 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.
A former wife appealed the dismissal of her petition to modify a property settlement agreement and divorce decree, seeking increased child support and modified alimony. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's dismissal, finding the wife was estopped by her prior acceptance of the agreement's benefits and failed to demonstrate either fraud or a sufficient change in circumstances to justify modification.
The court held that the wife was estopped from seeking modification because she had accepted the benefits of the agreement for more than two years, and she failed to present sufficient evidence of fraud, deception, or overreaching by the husband. Additionally, the wife failed to demonstrate a sufficient change in circumstances to justify modification of the final decree.
“the wife had accepted the benefits of the agreement for a period of time in excess of two years and was estopped in view of the evidence to require the husband to pay additional money as alimony”
Establishes the court's application of equitable estoppel based on the wife's acceptance and performance under the agreement
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe wife sued for divorce in September 1964, alleging joint ownership of two automobiles, a home, and a credit union savings account. She was represen…
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 Waiver Of Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final order which denied and dismissed, with prejudice, a petition for modification of a property *658settlement agreement filed by the former wife, Dorothy M. Gillotte.
The Wife originally sued the husband for divorce on September 10, 1964, alleging, inter alia, that she and the husband were the joint owners of two automobiles, a home, and a credit union savings account. She filed a property settlement agreement with her complaint for divorce. The agreement provided that for certain acts on the part of the husband, the wife would waive her rights to alimony. The wife was represented by an attorney and she executed the agreement freely and voluntarily. A final decree of divorce was subsequently entered between the parties on October 9, 1964.
On January 9, 1967, the wife filed a petition to modify, in which she prayed for an increase in child support and for a modification of the alimony provisions of the final decree.
The order herein appealed found that the wife had accepted the benefits of the agreement for a period of time in excess of two years and was estopped in view of the evidence to require the husband to pay additional money as alimony. The court found that the burden of proof was upon the wife to show fraud; that the evidence presented by her failed to support her allegations that her former husband was guilty of fraud, deception or overreaching; and that there was not sufficient evidence to support the other allegations of the petition.
We find no error. See Norton v. Norton, 131 Fla. 219, 179 So. 414 (1938) and Haynes v. Haynes, Fla.1954, 71 So.2d 491. See also Salomon v. Salomon, Fla. 1967, 196 So.2d 111; Cowen v. Cowen, Fla.1957, 95 So.2d 584; Masilotti v. Masilotti, 158 Fla. 663, 29 So.2d 872 (1947); and Howell v. Howell, Fla.App. 1964, 164 So.2d 231.
Furthermore, the record before us indicates that the former wife failed to show a sufficient change in circumstances to justify a modification of the final decree. See Graves v. Graves, Fla.App.1959, 115 So.2d 451.
Appellant’s other points on appeal have been examined and are not sufficient to warrant a reversal of the final order, which is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Morton Samuel Livenston v. Berneice Russell Livenston, 233 So. 2d 841 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)…ied during the original proceeding that he could, if ordered by the court, pay an amount greater than the $500 allowed in the final decree. He relies upon Graves [*842] v. Graves, Fla.App.1959, 115 So. 2d 451, and Gillotte v. Gillotte, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 657, as support for his argument. The cited cases do not support the proposition advanced In each case the court held an increase in alimony improper where the amount was originally set in a property settlement and the benefits of the property settlemen…
-
Willey v. Willey, 354 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…or committed in granting modification of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage when the trial judge found, and the record reflected, that the husband failed to demonstrate a change in the circumstances of the parties. See Gillotte v. Gillotte, 212 So. 2d 657 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); Taplin v. Taplin, 341 So. 2d 1064 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Section 61.14(1), Florida Statutes (1975). Reversed.…
Authorities Cited
- Salomon v. Salomon, 196 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1967)
- Isabel M. Cowen (Papert) v. Cowen, 95 So. 2d 584 (Fla. 1957)
- Masilotti v. Masilotti, 158 Fla. 663 (Fla. 1947)
- Norton v. Katharine E. Norton, 131 Fla. 219 (Fla. 1938)
- Howell v. Howell, 164 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Haynes v. Haynes, 71 So. 2d 491 (Fla. 1954)
- Graves v. Graves, 115 So. 2d 451 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)