Sitek v. Sitek

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Sitek v. Sitek

486 So. 2d 56, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 837, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7167

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 8, 1986

DocketNo. 85-1884

StatusPublished

This text of 486 So. 2d 56 (Sitek v. Sitek) 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

Sitek v. Sitek, 486 So. 2d 56, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 837, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7167 (Fla. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Finding that the payments provided for in the property settlement agreement incorporated in the final judgment of dissolution were alimony payments and that the property settlement agreement contained no expression of the parties’ intention to waive modification of alimony, we affirm. Witter v. Witter, 443 So.2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Wolfe v. Wolfe, 424 So.2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Feldman v. Feldman, 317 So.2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); see Boyd v. Boyd, 478 So.2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); cf. Wilson v. Wilson, 485 So.2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (agreement requiring husband pay sum to wife whether or not wife remarries not agreement for payment of alimony but rather non-modifiable “pure property settlement agreement”); Bassett [57]*57v. Bassett, 464 So.2d 1203, 1210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (on rehearing) (settlement agreement not modifiable where it contained unambiguous waiver of right to modify), review denied, 476 So.2d 672 (Fla.1985); Karch v. Karch, 445 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (payments as consideration for relinquishment of valuable property rights not modifiable).

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

Finding that the payments provided for in the property settlement agreement incorporated in the final judgment of dissolution were alimony payments and that the property settlement agreement contained no expression of the parties’ intention to waive modification of alimony, we affirm. Witter v. Witter, 443 So.2d 417 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984); Wolfe v. Wolfe, 424 So.2d 32 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982); Feldman v. Feldman, 317 So.2d 136 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975); see Boyd v. Boyd, 478 So.2d 356 (Fla. 3d DCA 1985); cf. Wilson v. Wilson, 485 So.2d 20 (Fla. 2d DCA 1986) (agreement requiring husband pay sum to wife whether or not wife remarries not agreement for payment of alimony but rather non-modifiable “pure property settlement agreement”); Bassett [57]*57v. Bassett, 464 So.2d 1203, 1210 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (on rehearing) (settlement agreement not modifiable where it contained unambiguous waiver of right to modify), review denied, 476 So.2d 672 (Fla.1985); Karch v. Karch, 445 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (payments as consideration for relinquishment of valuable property rights not modifiable).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

486 So. 2d 56, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 837, 1986 Fla. App. LEXIS 7167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sitek-v-sitek-fladistctapp-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack