MARTHA GILBERT, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT G. GILBERT, 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.
In this divorce appeal, the Third District Court of Appeal held that a settlement agreement between divorcing spouses constituted a property settlement agreement and was therefore not subject to modification under Florida law. The ex-husband sought to be relieved of his obligation to maintain a $60,000 life insurance policy for his ex-wife's benefit, but the court reversed the lower court's modification order.
The court held that the agreement was a property settlement agreement and therefore not subject to modification under the statute. The nature of the agreement—characterized by the wife's receipt of valuable property, the husband's covenant to maintain an insurance policy in her favor, mutual release of property claims, and the wife's acknowledgment that benefits received constituted acceptance in lieu of all support claims—established it as a property settlement.
[1] A settlement agreement entered into by parties in a divorce action is considered a property settlement and is not subject to modification under statutory provisions gover…
[2] A court cannot modify a property settlement agreement absent a specific statutory provision authorizing such modification.
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“It is the nature of the agreement which determines it to be a property settlement not subject to modification.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that the character of the agreement, not its label, determines whether it is subject to modification.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties were divorced in Dade County in 1966 pursuant to a comprehensive settlement agreement. Under the agreement, the wife received custody of t…
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 Divorce Judgment cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal by the defendant below from a post judgment order modifying a settlement agreement entered into by the parties, which the court noted and found to be reasonable in the divorce judgment.
The parties were divorced in Dade County in 1966. Prior to the divorce action they entered into an agreement. Thereby the wife was given custody of the three minor children, and the husband agreed to pay child support of $675 per month ($225 per month for each child until attaining 21 years of age), and to furnish needed medication for the children. The husband agreed to deed the marital home to the wife and transfer to her the title to an automobile. The husband agreed to continue in effect two insurance policies on his life. One, for $50,000, was for the benefit of the children. The other, for $60,000, was for the benefit of the wife. She was made the owner of both policies. No alimony was provided for. The husband agreed that the obligations undertaken by him would continue beyond his death and be chargeable to his estate.
The agreement contained a release by each of the parties from all claims to the property of the other (not otherwise provided for in the agreement), and contained the following provision:
“The Wife accepts the provision herein made for her in lieu of any and all claims arising against the husband for her support and maintenance and with the acknowledgement that such provisions will be satisfactory and reasonable”. In 1966, a short time after the divorce, the wife remarried. In June of 1974 the wife and her second husband, with the consent of her ex-husband, obtained a judgment by which her second husband adopted the children.
Shortly thereafter the ex-husband filed a petition in the divorce action to modify the judgment by relieving him of his said obligation to continue to maintain the $60,000 life insurance policy for the benefit of the wife. On hearing thereon the court granted the order now on appeal, relieving the husband from paying further premiums on said life insurance policy.
The determinative question here is whether the agreement entered into by the parties was a property settlement, and therefor not subject to modification under § 61.14 Fla.Stat., F.S.A., as contended for by the appellant, or was not of that character and was subject to modification, as contended for by the appellee. On considering the provisions of the agreement we are impelled to hold that it was a property settlement agreement, and as such was not subject to modification under the statute, with reference to the obligation therein of the husband to maintain the insurance policy in question.
It is the nature of the agreement which determines it to be a property settlement not subject to modification. This agreement had the features which made it a property settlement, where the wife received valuable property thereunder, the husband covenanted to maintain an insurance policy on his life in her favor, making her the owner thereof, the parties released claims to property of the other, and the wife acknowledged that the benefits received by her under the agreement were accepted in lieu of all claims for support. See Vance v. Vance, 143 Fla. 513, 197 So. 128; Underwood v. Underwood, Fla.1953, 64 So. 2d 281; Fort v. Fort, Fla. 1956, 90 So. 2d 313; Howell v. Howell, Fla.App. 1964, 164 So. 2d 231; Salomon v. Salomon, Fla.App.1966, 186 So. 2d 39; Salomon v. Salomon, Fla. 1967, 196 So. 2d 111; McKenna v. McKenna, Fla.App.1969, 220 So. 2d 433.
For the reasons stated, the order appealed from is reversed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Turner v. Evabel M. Turner, 383 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…overreaching or unconscion-ability. Also, where a payment which incidentally contributes toward support is, in effect, payment for a property right, no modification is permitted. Mills v. Mills, 339 So. 2d 681 (Fla.1st DCA 1976); Gilbert v. Gilbert, 312 So. 2d 511 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). The foregoing analysis leads inevitably to the conclusion that there are no public policy reasons which prevent a party from waiving either the right to alimony in the first instance or the right to subsequently obtain modificati…
-
Mills v. Mills, 339 So. 2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976)…property interests and at the same time is to receive periodic payments specified as alimony, such agreements are not subject to modification. Salomon v. Salomon, 196 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1967); Fort v. Fort, 90 So. 2d 313 (Fla.1956); Gilbert v. Gilbert, 312 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975). If the husband’s petition were construed to be a motion for relief from judgment under Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.540, the result would be the same. This rule does provide that the court may relieve a party from a final judgment by reason o…
-
Woodworth v. Woodworth, 385 So. 2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…e protection is additional alimony, support, or maintenance. We are of the opinion, in the absence of such expression, that the parties intended this provision to be a property right acquired as a part of the property settlement. Gilbert v. Gilbert, 312 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Sheffield v. Sheffield, 310 So. 2d 410 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); Fowler v. Fowler, 112 So. 2d 411 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). IV The fourth issue is whether the trial court erred in awarding appellee attorney’s fees of $1,800.00. We conclud…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Underwood v. Underwood, 64 So. 2d 281 (Fla. 1953)
- Vance v. Vance, 143 Fla. 513 (Fla. 1940)
- Salomon v. Salomon, 196 So. 2d 111 (Fla. 1967)
- Fort v. Anne Burton Fort, 90 So. 2d 313 (Fla. 1956)
- Howell v. Howell, 164 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- McKENNA v. McKENNA, 220 So. 2d 433 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969)
- Anne Marlowe Salomon v. Salomon, 186 So. 2d 39 (Fla. 3d DCA 1966)