PARIS G. SINGER, APPELLANT,
v.
JANE E. SINGER, 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 granted appellee's petition for rehearing and affirmed the trial court's final judgment of dissolution of marriage, holding that the trial court properly construed and enforced the parties' antenuptial agreement.
The trial court properly construed and gave effect to the parties' antenuptial agreement, and the final judgment of dissolution of marriage should be affirmed.
[1] A trial court's judgment enforcing an antenuptial agreement in a dissolution of marriage proceeding will be affirmed where the court properly construed and gave effect to…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceParis and Jane Singer executed an antenuptial agreement on the eve of their marriage eight years before filing suit for dissolution of marriage.…
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 Antenuptial Agreement Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
ON APPELLEE’S PETITION FOR REHEARING GRANTED
OWEN, Judge.
On July 18, 1975 we filed an opinion and decision of this court modifying in two respects the final judgment of dissolution of marriage which had been appealed. Appellant and appellee each filed a petition for rehearing. We denied the appellant’s but granted the appellee’s and allowed oral argument thereon.
Upon reconsideration of the briefs, oral argument and the record, we have concluded that the final judgment as entered by the trial court properly construed and gave effect to the parties’ antenuptial agreement executed by them on the eve of their marriage eight years prior to the filing of this suit. Accordingly, by separate order entered today we have withdrawn the opinion and decision of this court filed July 18, 1975 and substitute therefor this opinion and decision in which we hold that no error has been demonstrated and the final judgment should be and is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
WALDEN, C. J., and MAGER, J., concur. Ordered upon appellee’s petition for rehearing filed August 4, 1975 and oral argument granted thereon that the opinion and decision of this court filed July 18, 1975 is hereby withdrawn and vacated and the opinion and decision of this court filed this date, wherein the final judgment appealed is affirmed without change or modification, is substituted therefor, and further,
Ordered that appellant’s August 22, 1975 Motion for Leave to File Response to Ap-•pellee’s Petition for Rehearing was granted, and said response filed September 16, 1975 has been noted.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Satter v. Satter, 659 So. 2d 1185 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…est. We affirm the other issue finding that the trial court’s requirement that the husband transfer the Cape Cod home free and clear of any hens or encumbrances to be a proper construction of the parties’ prenuptial agreement. See Singer v. Singer, 321 So. 2d 103 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). [*1186] On remand, we direct that the trial court’s January 6, 1994 order granting in part and denying in part wife’s post trial motions be amended in paragraph one to delete prejudgment interest. REVERSED IN PART AND AFFIRMED…