DOROTHY R. DUNSON, APPELLANT,
v.
JARRELL R. DUNSON, 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.
Dorothy Dunson appealed an interlocutory order striking her third defense in a divorce action concerning alimony modification. The court dismissed the appeal as frivolous, holding that alimony awards from divorce decrees are equitable matters subject to modification and do not constitute unmodifiable contracts unless they meet strict requirements for property settlement agreements.
The court held that interlocutory appeals from orders in divorce actions are proper because divorce is a matter of equitable cognizance under Florida law. However, the appeal was frivolous because alimony awards in divorce decrees are subject to modification under Florida law and do not constitute binding contracts unless they meet the requirements for a contractual property settlement agreement as established in Salomon v. Salomon.
[1] Interlocutory appeals are permitted from all matters formerly cognizable in equity.
[2] Interlocutory appeals from matters formerly cognizable in law are permitted only in specified situations.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“Divorce, or in modern terminology dissolution of marriage, is a subject matter which since the ecclesiastical high courts of England has been inherently cognizable in equity.”
Establishes that divorce matters fall within equity jurisdiction, making interlocutory appeals proper under Florida Appellate Rule 4.2(a).
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDorothy Dunson and Jarrell Dunson were parties to a divorce action. The trial court entered a final divorce decree that included a property settlement…
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 Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
On Motion to Dismiss and/or Quash Interlocutory Appeal
RAWLS, Chief Judge.
By an instrument entitled “Motion to Dismiss and/or Quash Interlocutory Appeal”, appellee citing Duncan v. Pullum, 198 So. 2d 658 (Fla.App. 2nd 1967); Harbor Yacht Repair v. Sanger, 267 So. 2d 51 (Fla.App. 3rd 1972) ; and Radio Commun. Corp. v. Oki Electronics of Am., Inc., 277 So. 2d 289 (Fla.App. 4th 1973), urges that the order appealed is not a proper matter to be reviewed by interlocutory appeal. The subject matter of each case cited by appellee is a matter formerly cognizable only in a law action.
An appreciation of the difference between matters formerly cognizable in law and those formerly cognizable in equity is necessary in order to understand when Florida Appellate Rule 4.2 concerning interlocutory appeals is applicable to a given cause. Florida Appellate Rule 4.2(a) provides for interlocutory appeals from all matters formerly cognizable in equity. However, the rule permits interlocutory appeals from matters formerly cognizable in law only in certain specified situations.
The order challenged in the subject interlocutory appeal concerns the termination of future alimony payments and it arises out of a divorce action between the parties. Divorce, or in modern terminology dissolution of marriage, is a subject matter which since the ecclesiastical high courts of England has been inherently cognizable in equity. Therefore, appellee’s contention that this appeal should be dismissed as it is not a proper matter for an interlocutory appeal is without merit.
However, appellee also argues that the appeal should be dismissed as it is frivolous. We agree. The subject interlocutory appeal is from an order of the trial court striking appellant’s third defense which was grounded upon the idea that an award of alimony entered into pursuant to an agreement between the parties and approved by the chancellor in his final decree is a contract between the parties and not subject to modification by the court. It is apparent from a reading of the final divorce decree that the subject property settlement does not meet the requisites for a contractual property settlement agreement as set forth in Salomon v. Salomon, 196 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1967). Therefore, the divorce decree and its incorporated property settlement agreement is subject to modification by the trial judge, Florida Statute 61.14(1). The appeal is frivolous and is hereby
Dismissed.
JOHNSON and MILLS, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Salomon v. Salomon, 196 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1967)
- Duncan v. Pullum, 198 So. 2d 658 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)
- Radio Commc'ns Corp. v. OKI Elecs. OF Am., Inc., 277 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 4th DCA 1973)
- Harbor Yacht Repair, Inc. v. Sanger, 267 So. 2d 51 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972)