TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Masters v. Masters

Masters v. Masters, 443 So. 2d 388 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court of Appeal of Florida · State Appellate Courts
Decided
December 30, 1983
Docket
No. 83-868
Judges
Ott
Citations
443 So. 2d 388
Cited by 6 1 descriptions by later courts

Opinion

443 So.2d 388 (1983)

Marilyn F. MASTERS, Appellant,

v.

Marion Neal MASTERS, Appellee.

No. 83-868.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

December 30, 1983.

*389 William L. Lyman of William L. Lyman, P.A., Clearwater, for appellant.

Wayne O. Smith, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

OTT, Chief Judge.

In this postdissolution proceeding, the trial court found that lump sum alimony payable in installments to appellant pursuant to a property settlement agreement was actually the discharge of a debt. We reverse.

The marriage of the parties was dissolved in 1980. The final judgment of dissolution approved and incorporated by reference a settlement agreement previously executed by both parties whereby the appellee agreed to pay as lump sum alimony $154,000 in monthly installments over a fifteen-year period.

In 1982, appellee filed bankruptcy proceedings. He thereafter ceased making the monthly payments and filed a motion seeking to have the payments determined to be the discharge of a debt, presumably in an attempt to have the payments discharged by the bankruptcy court. The lower court found that the provision in question was for the payment of debts owed by appellee to appellant.

We find no evidence that the lump sum alimony was anything other than what it was labeled. Lump sum alimony may be utilized to ensure equitable distribution of property acquired during the marriage. Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197, 1201 (Fla. 1980). Upon entry of the final judgment incorporating the agreement to pay lump sum alimony, appellant had a vested right which was not subject to modification (unless the parties had agreed otherwise). Id.

The decision of the trial court is REVERSED.

HOBSON and LEHAN, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 1 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 6 cases

View all citing references →
1985: 21988: 11999: 12006: 12009: 119852026peak 1985 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Borchard v. Borchard730 So. 2d 748 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
  2. Pipitone v. Pipitone23 So. 3d 131 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)
  3. Pullo v. Pullo926 So. 2d 448 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
  4. English v. Galbreath462 So. 2d 876 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
  5. Cox v. Cox462 So. 2d 122 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
  6. Rentz v. Rentz535 So. 2d 613 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

Most recent

  1. Pipitone v. Pipitone23 So. 3d 131 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)
  2. Pullo v. Pullo926 So. 2d 448 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)
  3. Borchard v. Borchard730 So. 2d 748 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
  4. Rentz v. Rentz535 So. 2d 613 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)
  5. English v. Galbreath462 So. 2d 876 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)
  6. Cox v. Cox462 So. 2d 122 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) 2,222
Osterink v. Moon, 443 So. 2d 388 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list