Callahan v. Callahan

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Callahan v. Callahan

604 So. 2d 927, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9805, 1992 WL 222161

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 15, 1992

DocketNo. 91-2512

StatusPublished

This text of 604 So. 2d 927 (Callahan v. Callahan) 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

Callahan v. Callahan, 604 So. 2d 927, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9805, 1992 WL 222161 (Fla. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment of dissolution, but reverse and remand that part of the trial court’s order distributing the marital assets and awarding the wife permanent alimony.

In a previous order, the court specifically found that the property settlement agreement entered into by the parties was obtained by the wife through deceit and should be set aside. We agree with the appellant-husband that although the final judgment of dissolution entered by the successor judge acknowledges that the settlement agreement was unenforceable, the court’s grossly inequitable distribution of the marital property effectively adopted the fraudulent settlement and must also be set aside. Bergstrom v. Bergstrom, 559 So.2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 574 So.2d 139 (Fla.1990); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Williamson v. Williamson, 367 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1979). On remand the court should make specific findings regarding the disposition of proceeds from the sale of the parties’ [928]*928home and the basis for the distribution of marital property. § 61.075, Fla.Stat. (1991).

Reversed and remanded for an equitable distribution and reconsideration of alimony accordingly.

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

PER CURIAM.

We affirm the final judgment of dissolution, but reverse and remand that part of the trial court’s order distributing the marital assets and awarding the wife permanent alimony.

In a previous order, the court specifically found that the property settlement agreement entered into by the parties was obtained by the wife through deceit and should be set aside. We agree with the appellant-husband that although the final judgment of dissolution entered by the successor judge acknowledges that the settlement agreement was unenforceable, the court’s grossly inequitable distribution of the marital property effectively adopted the fraudulent settlement and must also be set aside. Bergstrom v. Bergstrom, 559 So.2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA), rev. denied, 574 So.2d 139 (Fla.1990); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980); Williamson v. Williamson, 367 So.2d 1016 (Fla.1979). On remand the court should make specific findings regarding the disposition of proceeds from the sale of the parties’ [928]*928home and the basis for the distribution of marital property. § 61.075, Fla.Stat. (1991).

Reversed and remanded for an equitable distribution and reconsideration of alimony accordingly.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

604 So. 2d 927, 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 9805, 1992 WL 222161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/callahan-v-callahan-fladistctapp-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack