Masters v. Masters

443 So. 2d 388
CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida
DecidedDecember 30, 1983
Docket83-868
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 443 So. 2d 388 (Masters v. Masters) 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
Masters v. Masters, 443 So. 2d 388 (Fla. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

443 So.2d 388 (1983)

Marilyn F. MASTERS, Appellant,
v.
Marion Neal MASTERS, Appellee.

No. 83-868.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 30, 1983.

*389 William L. Lyman of William L. Lyman, P.A., Clearwater, for appellant.

Wayne O. Smith, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

OTT, Chief Judge.

In this postdissolution proceeding, the trial court found that lump sum alimony payable in installments to appellant pursuant to a property settlement agreement was actually the discharge of a debt. We reverse.

The marriage of the parties was dissolved in 1980. The final judgment of dissolution approved and incorporated by reference a settlement agreement previously executed by both parties whereby the appellee agreed to pay as lump sum alimony $154,000 in monthly installments over a fifteen-year period.

In 1982, appellee filed bankruptcy proceedings. He thereafter ceased making the monthly payments and filed a motion seeking to have the payments determined to be the discharge of a debt, presumably in an attempt to have the payments discharged by the bankruptcy court. The lower court found that the provision in question was for the payment of debts owed by appellee to appellant.

We find no evidence that the lump sum alimony was anything other than what it was labeled. Lump sum alimony may be utilized to ensure equitable distribution of property acquired during the marriage. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Fla. 1980). Upon entry of the final judgment incorporating the agreement to pay lump sum alimony, appellant had a vested right which was not subject to modification (unless the parties had agreed otherwise). Id.

The decision of the trial court is REVERSED.

HOBSON and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Pipitone v. Pipitone
23 So. 3d 131 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2009)
Pullo v. Pullo
926 So. 2d 448 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 2006)
Borchard v. Borchard
730 So. 2d 748 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1999)
Rentz v. Rentz
535 So. 2d 613 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1988)
English v. Galbreath
462 So. 2d 876 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)
Cox v. Cox
462 So. 2d 122 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
443 So. 2d 388, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/masters-v-masters-fladistctapp-1983.