Forte v. Forte

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Forte v. Forte

478 So. 2d 460, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2522, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16676

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedNovember 12, 1985

DocketNo. 85-1429

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 478 So. 2d 460 (Forte v. Forte) 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

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

478 So. 2d 460, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2522, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16676, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/forte-v-forte-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack