Forte v. Forte

478 So. 2d 460, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2522, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16676
District Court of Appeal of Florida·Decided November 12, 1985·No. No. 85-1429·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.

The trial court correctly held that, in contrast to the provision of the parties’ separation agreement and the final judgment of dissolution requiring the husband to provide a home for the wife and children, which we held in Forte v. Forte, 320 So.2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 351 So.2d 406 (Fla.1977), was a modifiable aspect of child support, the portion which grants the wife an option to purchase the home conferred a vested property right which is for that reason not subject to modification. Farkas v. Farkas, 426 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); see Peacock v. Peacock, 439 So.2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Accordingly, the order dismissing the husband’s application for modification of the option is

Affirmed.

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

Forte v. Forte, 478 So. 2d 460, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2522, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16676 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

478 So. 2d 460 (Forte v. Forte) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

McCutcheon v. Tracy
928 So. 2d 364 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Power v. Power
864 So. 2d 523 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2004)
Kuhnke v. Kuhnke
556 So. 2d 1121 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1989)