ELIZABETH MARKHAM, APPELLANT,
v.
RONALD MARKHAM, 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 a party who accepted the benefits of a financial settlement in a divorce proceeding cannot later seek to set it aside.
Appellant sought to overturn a financial settlement incorporated into a final divorce judgment after accepting its benefits. She was represented by co…
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 Final Judgment Of Divorce cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant seeks review of a post final judgment order in a divorce proceeding, wherein her attack upon a financial settlement [incorporated in the final judgment of divorce] was denied. We affirm.
She was represented by able counsel at the time of the entry into the property settlement agreement. It is apparent from the record she was aware of her then husband’s financial worth [as revealed from his income tax returns and financial statement], that the agreement was fair and adequate,1 and it ill behooves her to attempt to set it aside after accepting the benefits of the settlement, particularly with not even an offer to return the parties to the status quo. See: Hunter v. Hunter, Fla.App.1969, 221 So.2d 189; Stehli v. Thompson, 151 Fla. 566, 10 So.2d 123.
Therefore, for the reasons above stated, the order here under review be and the same is hereby affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Zedeck v. Zedeck, 334 So. 2d 87 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…rely alleges a change in circumstances by virtue of a substantial increase in Leonard’s income subsequent to the time she entered into the agreement which is insufficient grounds for modification. See Haynes, supra; Markham v. Markham, Fla.App.1969, 222 So. 2d 759; Gilbert v. Gilbert, Fla.App.1975, 312 So. 2d 511. The order denying Leonard’s motion for protective order and allowing Marcia to take Leonard’s deposition with respect to his financial status is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedi…
-
Markham v. Markham, 232 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1969)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 222 So. 2d 759.…
-
Guaraz v. Rigoberto Guaraz, 465 So. 2d 617 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. Curr v. Helene Transportation Corp., 287 So. 2d 695 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974); Markham v. Markham, 222 So. 2d 759 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Bursten v. Green, 172 So. 2d 472 (Fla. 2d DCA 1965).…
Authorities Cited
- Kahn v. Kahn, 78 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 1955)
- Platt v. Platt, 103 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Klaber v. Klaber, 133 So. 2d 98 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Stehli v. Thompson, 151 Fla. 566 (Fla. 1942)
- Downey v. State, 221 So. 2d 189 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)
- Sanders v. Sanders, 125 So. 2d 916 (Fla. 1st DCA 1961)