Blue v. Blue
This text of 492 So. 2d 804 (Blue v. Blue) 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.
Opinion
This cause is before us on appeal and cross appeal from an order modifying a property and settlement agreement adopted in a final judgment of dissolution of marriage. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
We affirm the trial court’s decision not to modify the provision in the agreement regarding retirement benefits, and reverse the trial court's decision to reduce by one-half the house payment to the former wife which was being made by the former husband.1
To modify the final judgment, the complaining party must show a change of circumstance not present and contemplated at the time of the final judgment. Ashburn v. Ashburn, 350 So.2d 1158 (Fla. 2d DCA [805]*8051977); Floyd v. Floyd, 393 So.2d 22 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981).
In this case, the court inappropriately relied on the former wife’s remarriage to support the modification. The parties expressly stated in the separation and property settlement agreement which was incorporated in the final judgment, “[t]he parties agree that payment of the additional support will not abate with the remarriage of the wife.” It is clear that the parties contemplated the remarriage of the former wife at the time of the final judgment. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the order modifying the final judgment.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
492 So. 2d 804, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 1753, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 9383, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blue-v-blue-fladistctapp-1986.