Blanchard v. Blanchard

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Blanchard v. Blanchard

844 So. 2d 805, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7062, 2003 WL 21077456

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedMay 14, 2003

DocketNo. 4D02-3464

StatusPublished

This text of 844 So. 2d 805 (Blanchard v. Blanchard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Blanchard v. Blanchard, 844 So. 2d 805, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7062, 2003 WL 21077456 (Fla. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

KLEIN, J.

Appellant’s marriage was dissolved in 1992 by a judgment which incorporated an agreement providing, among other things, that appellant would pay permanent alimony. He recently filed this action to terminate his alimony obligation, arguing that the alimony provisions of section 61.08, Florida Statutes (2002) are unconstitutional because they violate the right to privacy of Article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution. The trial court denied relief. We conclude that, having agreed to pay alimony in a contract which also divided the parties’ property, the appellant is es-topped from now asserting that the alimony provision is unconstitutional. State ex rel. Watson v. Gray, 48 So.2d 84 (Fla.1950)(applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel). Affirmed.

POLEN, C.J., and GROSS, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KLEIN, J.

Appellant’s marriage was dissolved in 1992 by a judgment which incorporated an agreement providing, among other things, that appellant would pay permanent alimony. He recently filed this action to terminate his alimony obligation, arguing that the alimony provisions of section 61.08, Florida Statutes (2002) are unconstitutional because they violate the right to privacy of Article I, section 23 of the Florida Constitution. The trial court denied relief. We conclude that, having agreed to pay alimony in a contract which also divided the parties’ property, the appellant is es-topped from now asserting that the alimony provision is unconstitutional. State ex rel. Watson v. Gray, 48 So.2d 84 (Fla.1950)(applying the doctrine of equitable estoppel). Affirmed.

POLEN, C.J., and GROSS, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

844 So. 2d 805, 2003 Fla. App. LEXIS 7062, 2003 WL 21077456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blanchard-v-blanchard-fladistctapp-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack