Pratt v. Pratt

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Pratt v. Pratt

502 So. 2d 1001, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 584, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6853

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedFebruary 18, 1987

DocketNo. 86-1470

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 502 So. 2d 1001 (Pratt v. Pratt) 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

Pratt v. Pratt, 502 So. 2d 1001, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 584, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6853 (Fla. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

LEHAN, Judge.

An ex-wife appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of her motion for modification of the final judgment, requesting an extension of time for support payments from the ex-husband. We reverse.

The final judgment of dissolution incorporated a stipulation of the parties which concerned “support, attorneys’ fees and costs and settlement of rights to property.” The stipulation contained a provision that the husband would pay to the wife “periodic support” of $300 a month for thirty-six months or until the wife’s remarriage or the death of either party. It does not appear from the stipulation that this provision was in exchange for property. A support provision is subject to modification. This provision did not provide otherwise. The fact that a final judgment includes a property settlement does not preclude modification of its support provision. See Witter v. Witter, 443 So.2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Woodworth v. Woodworth, 385 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

We do not agree with the husband’s contention that the wife’s motion was untimely. The motion was filed within the thirty-six month period provided in the final judgment for the support payments. See Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So.2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

The order dismissing the motion is vacated and the cause is Remanded for consideration by the trial court of the motion for modification on its merits.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.

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

LEHAN, Judge.

An ex-wife appeals from the trial court’s dismissal of her motion for modification of the final judgment, requesting an extension of time for support payments from the ex-husband. We reverse.

The final judgment of dissolution incorporated a stipulation of the parties which concerned “support, attorneys’ fees and costs and settlement of rights to property.” The stipulation contained a provision that the husband would pay to the wife “periodic support” of $300 a month for thirty-six months or until the wife’s remarriage or the death of either party. It does not appear from the stipulation that this provision was in exchange for property. A support provision is subject to modification. This provision did not provide otherwise. The fact that a final judgment includes a property settlement does not preclude modification of its support provision. See Witter v. Witter, 443 So.2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Woodworth v. Woodworth, 385 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).

We do not agree with the husband’s contention that the wife’s motion was untimely. The motion was filed within the thirty-six month period provided in the final judgment for the support payments. See Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So.2d 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982).

The order dismissing the motion is vacated and the cause is Remanded for consideration by the trial court of the motion for modification on its merits.

SCHOONOVER, A.C.J., and FRANK, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

502 So. 2d 1001, 12 Fla. L. Weekly 584, 1987 Fla. App. LEXIS 6853, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pratt-v-pratt-fladistctapp-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack