RICHARD L. MORRIS, APPELLANT,
v.
BEATRICE T. MORRIS, 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.
Richard Morris appeals an order denying his motion to dismiss and treating his alimony obligation as a lump sum award surviving his ex-wife's death. The court reverses, holding that because the original alimony obligation was conditioned on the ex-wife's non-remarriage, it was not a fixed lump sum award and therefore terminated upon her death.
The court holds that the alimony award was not a lump sum award because the amount was contingent upon the ex-wife's non-remarriage, and therefore the obligation terminated upon her death. A true lump sum award must be for a specific, unconditional amount.
[1] Lump sum alimony is a vested property right that survives the death of the recipient.
[2] Alimony payable in installments is not necessarily lump sum alimony if the total amount is contingent upon future events.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Lump sum alimony is a vested property right, Latta v. Latta, Fla.App.1961, 135 So. 2d 443, and therefore survives death, Payne v. Payne, Fla.App.1967, 201 So. 2d 590; Van Boven v. First National Bank in Palm Beach, Fla.App.1970, 240 So. 2d 329.”
Establishes the general rule that lump sum alimony vests and survives death
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMorris and his former wife entered into a property settlement agreement providing for $25 weekly alimony payments for four years, terminable upon 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 Modification Of Final Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant-defendant Richard L. Morris seeks review of an order denying his motion to dismiss and ordering, among other things, that the alimony in question was lump sum alimony in the amount of $5,200.00 payable in 208 weekly installments. We reverse.
Morris was the defendant in the original divorce action. Prior to the decree, the parties entered into a property settlement which provided that Morris would pay $25.-00 per week as alimony for four years to his wife, hut that said payments would terminate (1) if the wife remarried, or (2) if the wife removed herself from the State of Florida and remained outside Florida for a period of 180 continuous days. The court entered its final judgment of divorce on March 7, 1969, approving the conditions of the property settlement agreement except for the second condition.
On March 23, 1970, Morris filed his petition for modification of final judgment, based upon change of circumstances. The former wife did not argue change of circumstances, but instead argued that the award was a lump sum award. The court entered its order on August 6, 1970 denying Morris’ motion, giving no reasons for its order.
Morris made the weekly payments until his former wife died, and on September 22, 1971, the former wife’s Executrix, Josephine Ogden, filed her motion for an order of contempt for payments due after the death of the ex-wife. Morris’ motion to dismiss was denied. After hearing, the court entered its order, finding that the award of alimony was lump sum alimony; that the order of August 6, 1970, in effect, found that the final judgment granted lump sum alimony in the amount of $5,200.00 payable in 208 weekly installments of $25.00 each. The court ordered Morris to pay the arrearage of $900.00 within sixty days and to continue making the payments until he had complied with the final judgment and the orders of the court.
Lump sum alimony is a vested property right, Latta v. Latta, Fla.App.1961, 135 So.2d 443, and therefore survives death, Payne v. Payne, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 590; Van Boven v. First National Bank in Palm Beach, Fla.App.1970, 240 So.2d 329. Lump sum alimony may properly be payable in installments, but in the cases reviewed the amount awarded was for a specific sum to be paid in full, Chester v. Chester, Fla.App.1970, 241 So.2d 190; Pross v. Pross, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 671.
In the case sub judice the amount awarded was not for a specific amount, since it was to be paid at the rate of $25.00 per week contingent upon the remarriage of the ex-wife.
Morris’ motion to dismiss should have been granted, and the judgment appealed is, therefore,
Reversed.
LILES, Acting C. J., and HOBSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Tedford J. Cann v. Margery M. Cann, 334 So. 2d 325 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…sometimes known as alimony in gross, is essentially payment of a definite sum and is in the nature of a final property settlement. Hence, an award of lump sum alimony creates a vested right which survives death (Morris v. Morris, Fla.App. 2nd 1973, 272 So. 2d 202) and is not modifiable nor terminable upon the divorced wife’s remarriage (Horne v. Horne, Fla.App. 2nd 1974, 289 So. 2d 39). Lump sum alimony may consist not only of money, but also or in lieu thereof, real or personal property, such as a marital h…
-
Philipose v. Philipose, 431 So. 2d 698 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)…has the financial ability to make the required payment without impairing his economic situation. Since lump sum alimony involves the payment of a fixed amount of money or property, it is a vested right, and it survives both death, Morris v. Morris, 272 So. 2d 202 (Fla. 2d DCA 1973), and remarriage, Horne v. Horne, 289 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974). Being vested, it is not subject to modification, Turner v. Turner, 383 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Delehant v. Delehant, 383 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Be…
-
Horne v. Alton L. Horne, 289 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974)…subsequent remarriage of the wife, absent a contrary provision in the agreement. If, on the other hand, the provision is for periodic alimony, the obligation would be modifiable and could terminate on remarriage. Morris v. Morris, Fla.App.2nd, 1973, 272 So. 2d 202. In Morris, supra, it was established that the distinction between periodic and lump sum alimony is whether the award is for an amount which is contingent upon subsequent events or is one for a specific amount. It was held in the cited case that si…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Pross v. Pross, 72 So. 2d 671 (Fla. 1954)
- Latta v. Parker A. Latta, 135 So. 2d 443 (Fla. 3d DCA 1961)
- Payne v. Payne, 201 So. 2d 590 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- van Boven v. First Nat'l Bank IN Palm Beach, 240 So. 2d 329 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Chester v. Chester, 241 So. 2d 190 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)