MANUEL BENITEZ, APPELLANT,
v.
ODALIS D. BENITEZ, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A former husband sought to modify a non-modifiable alimony provision in a marital settlement agreement by claiming the former wife's financial resources had changed. The Florida appellate court affirmed dismissal of the modification petition, holding that the parties' clear waiver of the right to modify alimony is enforceable and precludes all modification attempts.
The court held that the waiver provision means what it says and is enforceable. The former husband's agreement not to seek modification for any reason is binding, and filing a petition for modification constitutes a breach of that obligation. The trial court correctly dismissed the petition.
[1] A provision in a marital settlement agreement waiving the right to modification of alimony is enforceable.
[2] Parties to a marital settlement agreement may contractually waive their right to seek modification of alimony.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The question before us is whether a provision in a marital settlement agreement waiving the right to modification of alimony means what it says. We conclude that it does, and affirm the order below.”
States the core issue and the court's holding that waiver provisions are enforceable as written.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDuring dissolution of marriage proceedings, the parties executed a Marital Settlement Agreement requiring the husband to pay non-modifiable alimony to…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
COPE, J.
The question before us is whether a provision in a marital settlement agreement waiving the right to modification of alimony means what it says. We conclude that it does, and affirm the order below.
During their proceeding for dissolution of marriage, the parties entered into a Marital Settlement Agreement. The Agreement requires the former husband to pay to the former wife non-modifiable alimony, which terminates upon her remarriage, the death of either party, or after fifteen years, whichever occurs first. Remarriage is defined as a “ceremonial marriage.”
Both parties waived the right to seek modification of alimony. The Agreement included a provision that the former husband
shall not apply to any court for a modification of the aforesaid alimony provision or any judgment or decree into which the provisions of this Agreement shall be incorporated with respect to alimony or spousal support to be paid by the Husband to the Wife whether pursuant to Section 61.14[,] Florida Statutes[,] or any other provision or authority.
The Marital Settlement Agreement was executed by the parties and incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution of marriage in 1999.
In 2007, the former husband filed an Amended Petition for Downward Modification of Alimony. The trial court dismissed the Petition for Modification. The former husband has appealed.
Boiled down, the former husband says that the former wife has additional financial resources which have become available to her and that her alimony should be reduced. The specific theories need not be addressed.
The former husband agreed not to seek modification for any reason. He is in breach of his obligations by moving for modification. The trial court correctly dismissed the petition. See Ferraro v. Ferraro, 891 So. 2d 1211, 1212 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hoover Reed v. State, 891 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)
- Ferraro v. Ferraro, 891 So. 2d 1211 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005)