Matthes v. Matthes

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Matthes v. Matthes

531 So. 2d 984, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1983, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3731, 1988 WL 86586

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedAugust 24, 1988

DocketNo. 87-0939

StatusPublished

This text of 531 So. 2d 984 (Matthes v. Matthes) 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

Matthes v. Matthes, 531 So. 2d 984, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1983, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3731, 1988 WL 86586 (Fla. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the husband from a final judgment of dissolution. We affirm the award of attorney’s fees but reverse the disposition of the parties’ fourplex — actually, two separated buildings, each having two units; and remand with direction.

The trial court did not, nor could it from this record of pleadings and proof, set aside the parties’ pre-nuptial agreement. However, it rendered the agreement virtually unenforceable by awarding to the wife not only all of the rentals from three units, as well as lifetime use of the fourth unit, but also the sole determination of when, if ever, the fourplex was to be sold.

On remand the trial court is directed to render the agreement viable by eliminating permanent, unilateral control by the wife of the property’s disposition, and to make an appropriate award of permanent alimony appropriate to her needs and the husband’s ability to pay.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL, JJ., and COOK, JACK H., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal by the husband from a final judgment of dissolution. We affirm the award of attorney’s fees but reverse the disposition of the parties’ fourplex — actually, two separated buildings, each having two units; and remand with direction.

The trial court did not, nor could it from this record of pleadings and proof, set aside the parties’ pre-nuptial agreement. However, it rendered the agreement virtually unenforceable by awarding to the wife not only all of the rentals from three units, as well as lifetime use of the fourth unit, but also the sole determination of when, if ever, the fourplex was to be sold.

On remand the trial court is directed to render the agreement viable by eliminating permanent, unilateral control by the wife of the property’s disposition, and to make an appropriate award of permanent alimony appropriate to her needs and the husband’s ability to pay.

GLICKSTEIN, DELL, JJ., and COOK, JACK H., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

531 So. 2d 984, 13 Fla. L. Weekly 1983, 1988 Fla. App. LEXIS 3731, 1988 WL 86586, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthes-v-matthes-fladistctapp-1988.