Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida; September 27, 1989; Florida; State Appellate Court
A consolidated appeal has been made regarding a temporary support order that denied the wife relief and a final judgment stating she waived entitlements under a property settlement agreement from their dissolution proceedings. The divorce process began in 1986, with the wife filing initially and the husband counterpetitioning. Following a domestic violence injunction against the husband, a temporary relief order was issued in April 1987, granting the wife $1,000 per month and the husband exclusive possession of their home, which required the wife to vacate upon receiving $1,500 for relocation. In June 1987, the court validated the property settlement agreement made in January 1987, and by July, both parties agreed to dismiss their petitions. The husband then sold the marital home, and in January 1988, he filed for dissolution again. The wife sought temporary support and attorney's fees, but her motions were denied, prompting her appeal.
During a June 1988 dissolution hearing, the court treated the matter as a contract action, ruling that the wife's rights to temporary relief had already been adjudicated and denying her benefits under the property settlement agreement. The wife contended that the trial court failed to consider the parties’ financial circumstances outside the agreement and misinterpreted the agreement itself. The appellate court concurred, stating that while support obligations may not exist post-dissolution, parties cannot contract away marital support duties during the marriage. The court emphasized that the trial court needed to assess temporary support based on need, ability to pay, and the parties' living standards, rather than solely on the contract.
It was determined that the trial court's failure to address the temporary support issue outside the agreement constituted reversible error, necessitating an evidentiary hearing upon remand. Additionally, the court found fault in the trial court's interpretation of the agreement, specifically regarding the wife's compliance with the order to vacate the home, clarifying that her departure was not voluntary and did not equate to abandonment. Furthermore, the trial court incorrectly disregarded a provision regarding funds for an automobile, concluding that the wife was entitled to some funds under the agreement. Consequently, the appellate court ruled that the trial court erred in its interpretation and application of the settlement agreement's provisions.
Wife claims entitlement to half of the real estate commission from the sale of the marital home, asserting the trial court's finding that she "would be" entitled to $6,500 under the agreement was improperly denied. The court's decision is reversed and remanded for the trial court to provide reasons for the denial. The agreement's language in paragraph 11 indicates that the husband is obligated to acquire a new home after selling the old one, despite the trial court interpreting it as discretionary. Both parties intended for the wife to share equally in the equity of the new home, which should be held in both names. The trial court incorrectly stated it lacked evidence to determine the wife's equity in the new home and its furnishings. Regarding paragraph 6, the trial court found the husband "may be obligated" to provide a $400 monthly allowance but denied this without explanation; on remand, the court is instructed to clarify the reasons for denial. Additionally, the wife argues the trial court erred in not awarding her attorney's fees, as paragraph 15 entitles the prevailing party to such fees. The trial court's reliance on paragraph 23 to deny these fees was found to be irrelevant, and the determination of the prevailing party must be made before addressing this issue. The court affirms the dissolution of marriage while reversing and remanding the final judgment for further consideration and proceedings in line with this opinion.
