EDWARD W. WHITE, APPELLANT,
v.
M. CAROLE WHITE, 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.
Edward White appeals an order denying his petition to modify alimony payments under a property settlement agreement. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the parties' agreement to make the alimony non-modifiable is enforceable as a binding contract between the parties.
The court held that the agreement was not subject to modification. The court determined that substance controls over form, and since the agreement constituted a complete contractual settlement and division of property for a fixed consideration over a fixed period, with the obligation binding the estate and surviving remarriage, it should be treated as a contract between strangers and modified only upon proof justifying modification or cancellation of any contract.
[1] A lump sum alimony award payable in installments, which is not terminable upon the death or remarriage of the recipient and binds the payor's estate, is considered a fixe…
[2] The substance and not the form of an agreement controls its characterization; therefore, an award labeled as alimony may be deemed a non-modifiable property settlement if…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Despite the fact that the agreement uses the term alimony, it is not conclusive. Rather it is the substance and not the form which controls.”
Establishes the controlling principle that courts look to substance over form in characterizing settlement payments
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIn November 1971, Carole filed for dissolution of marriage. In May 1972, the parties executed a property settlement agreement whereby Edward would pay…
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 Petition For Modification Of Alimony cases and more on FLexlaw
HAVERFIELD, Judge.
Edward White seeks reversal of an order denying his petition to modify the alimony provision of a property settlement agreement.
In November 1971, Carole White filed a petition for dissolution of marriage to Edward and alleged a special equity in certain jointly held properties. Subsequently, in May 1972 the parties entered into a property settlement agreement which provided that Edward pay as lump sum alimony $181,500, payable in $1,500 monthly installments commencing on June 1, 1972. The parties further agreed that the alimony award could not be modified regardless of any change in circumstances of either of the parties. The agreement also contained provisions dividing the parties’ real and per sonal property and in exchange therefor Carole released any and all claims against Edward. A dissolution of marriage judgment incorporating this agreement was entered on May 25, 1972. Edward paid the monthly installments through June 1973 and then, having suffered business reverses, in December 1973 filed a petition to modify property settlement which was amended in April 1975. The parties agreed to first place before the court the issue of whether these payments were subject to modification. After a hearing, the chancellor ruled that the alimony award was not modifiable and denied the petition as amended.
Edward basically contends that the chancellor committed error in holding that the agreement was not subject to modification pursuant to Section 61.14 Florida Statutes (1975). We cannot agree.
Despite the fact that the agreement uses the term alimony, it is not conclusive. Rather it is the substance and not the form which controls. Underwood v. Underwood, 64 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1953). The terms of the agreement clearly reflect its character as a property settlement agreement between the parties whereby Carole, in exchange for a substantial sum of money and property, relinquished all claims against Edward. The agreement with respect to the lump sum alimony expressly bound Edward’s estate in the event of his death and the obligation to pay the monthly installments does not terminate even if Carole should remarry. It is evident that the parties effected a complete contractual settlement, transfer, division and sale of their properties for a consideration definitely fixed for an expressed period of time. See Howell v. Howell, 164 So. 2d 231 (Fla.2d DCA 1964).
The rights which became fixed and vested under the provisions of this agreement should not be disturbed by the courts except upon proof which would justify modification or cancellation of a contract between strangers. See Sedell v. Sedell, 100 So. 2d 639 (Fla.1st DCA 1958).
Thus, we find the chancellor was eminently correct in holding the agreement was not subject to modification. See Gilbert v. Gilbert, 312 So. 2d 511 (Fla.3d DCA 1975).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Powell v. Powell, 386 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…that the property settlement agreement involved there was not subject to modification because of any change of circumstances. See also Salomon v. Salomon, 196 So. 2d 111 (Fla.1967); Rubio v. Rubio, 347 So. 2d 1093 (Fla.2d DCA 1977); White v. White, 338 So. 2d 883 (Fla.3d DCA 1976). That principle has no application to this case, in which the agreement explicitly permitted the modification sought and secured below. See note 2, supra. Affirmed.8 . Fla.R.App.P. 9.130(a)(4). . The agreement provided, inter al…
-
Martinez v. Martinez, 383 So. 2d 1153 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…nd it may not modify the child support aspects of a settlement agreement incorporated into a final judgment of dissolution absent a showing of a change in circumstances of the parties. Frizzell v. Bartley, 372 So. 2d 1371 (Fla.1979); White v. White, 338 So. 2d 883 (Fla.3d DCA 1976); and Hagen v. Hagen, 308 So. 2d 41 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). The trial court said it was modifying the agreement because the husband had previously overpaid the wife in connection with other obligations. This' finding does not meet the st…
-
Broyles v. Broyles, 573 So. 2d 357 (Fla. 5th DCA 1990)…n a property settlement agreement as “alimony” is not controlling on the issue of whether true alimony was intended by the parties. Underwood v. Underwood, 64 So. 2d 281 (Fla.1953); Rubio v. Rubio, 347 So. 2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); White v. White, 338 So. 2d 883 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. den., 352 So. 2d 176 (Fla.1977). Permanent periodic alimony is terminated upon the death of either spouse or the remarriage of the receiving spouse. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197, 1202 (Fla.1980). The instant “ali…
Previewing 3 of 7 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)
- Maxine Florence Sedell (now Maxine Sedell White) v. Sedell, 100 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Howell v. Howell, 164 So. 2d 231 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)
- Gilbert v. Gilbert, 312 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975)