Coniglio v. Coniglio

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Coniglio v. Coniglio

370 So. 2d 86, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14515

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 27, 1979

DocketNo. 78-13

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 370 So. 2d 86 (Coniglio v. Coniglio) 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

Coniglio v. Coniglio, 370 So. 2d 86, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14515 (Fla. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OTT, Judge.

This appeal is from a post judgment of dissolution order of the trial judge granting [87]*87the husband certain modifications of the monthly payments payable to the wife. We reverse in part.

Based upon his previous judgment of dissolution and the stipulation of the parties upon which it was predicated, the trial judge properly found that all of the monthly payments to the wife were an inseparable part of “a true property settlement agreement.” The wife transferred to the husband all of her interest in the substantial real estate holdings of the parties in return for the financial payments to her or in her behalf. The trial court could not reduce the monthly payments payable to the wife and it properly declined to do so as to future payments. See Rubio v. Rubio, 347 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Mills v. Mills, 339 So.2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

That part of the order of modification which reduced the arrearages for past unpaid payments of the husband to the wife was improper and is, therefore, reversed and remanded for the entry of a judgment for the full amount of the arrearages.

GRIMES, C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

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

OTT, Judge.

This appeal is from a post judgment of dissolution order of the trial judge granting [87]*87the husband certain modifications of the monthly payments payable to the wife. We reverse in part.

Based upon his previous judgment of dissolution and the stipulation of the parties upon which it was predicated, the trial judge properly found that all of the monthly payments to the wife were an inseparable part of “a true property settlement agreement.” The wife transferred to the husband all of her interest in the substantial real estate holdings of the parties in return for the financial payments to her or in her behalf. The trial court could not reduce the monthly payments payable to the wife and it properly declined to do so as to future payments. See Rubio v. Rubio, 347 So.2d 1093 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Mills v. Mills, 339 So.2d 681 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976).

That part of the order of modification which reduced the arrearages for past unpaid payments of the husband to the wife was improper and is, therefore, reversed and remanded for the entry of a judgment for the full amount of the arrearages.

GRIMES, C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

370 So. 2d 86, 1979 Fla. App. LEXIS 14515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coniglio-v-coniglio-fladistctapp-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack