Wineglass v. Wineglass

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Wineglass v. Wineglass

48 So. 3d 1003, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18336, 2010 WL 4903795

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedDecember 3, 2010

Docket5D10-1613

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 48 So. 3d 1003 (Wineglass v. Wineglass) 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

Wineglass v. Wineglass, 48 So. 3d 1003, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18336, 2010 WL 4903795 (Fla. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Johnny Wineglass appeals, pro se, from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging the alimony amount of $150.00 per month which he is required to pay his former wife for a period of ten years. The final judgment was entered pursuant to a mediated settlement agreement in which Wineglass agreed to make the monthly $150.00 alimony payments. Because the final judgment was lawfully entered in accordance with Wineglass’s own agreement, he is not entitled to any relief on appeal. Cf. Petracca v. Petracca, 706 So.2d 904, 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“Obviously under Florida’s common law, it is ordinarily not the province of judges to say whether a voluntary agreement is fair to one of the contracting parties. Courts are obligated to uphold even hard or bad bargains freely made without fraud or coercion, so long as they are not against public policy.”). Additionally, we note that we are not permitted to consider the non-record facts that Wineglass attempts to present in support of his argument on appeal. See Brayton v. *1004 Brayton, 46 So.3d 142, n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, ORFINGER, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

Johnny Wineglass appeals, pro se, from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage, challenging the alimony amount of $150.00 per month which he is required to pay his former wife for a period of ten years. The final judgment was entered pursuant to a mediated settlement agreement in which Wineglass agreed to make the monthly $150.00 alimony payments. Because the final judgment was lawfully entered in accordance with Wineglass’s own agreement, he is not entitled to any relief on appeal. Cf. Petracca v. Petracca, 706 So.2d 904, 911 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998) (“Obviously under Florida’s common law, it is ordinarily not the province of judges to say whether a voluntary agreement is fair to one of the contracting parties. Courts are obligated to uphold even hard or bad bargains freely made without fraud or coercion, so long as they are not against public policy.”). Additionally, we note that we are not permitted to consider the non-record facts that Wineglass attempts to present in support of his argument on appeal. See Brayton v. *1004 Brayton, 46 So.3d 142, n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010).

AFFIRMED.

GRIFFIN, ORFINGER, and LAWSON, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 So. 3d 1003, 2010 Fla. App. LEXIS 18336, 2010 WL 4903795, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wineglass-v-wineglass-fladistctapp-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack