Cook v. Cook, 4D11-2561

The parties were married for nineteen years and had four children. They filed for dissolution of marriage, and their marriage was later dissolved by a final judgment that incorporated a marital settlement agreement (“MSA”). The MSA set a specific child support obligation for the former husband. The MSA also set a $1 per month alimony amount. The MSA provided that the former wife did not waive alimony and that the alimony amount “may be modified upon any modification in custody of the minor children, such that the alimony obligation would be increased.”

The former husband later petitioned for modification of his child support payment once only one of the parties’ children was still a minor. The former wife counter-petitioned for an increase in alimony due to an alleged substantial change in circumstances. The trial court reduced former husband’s child support payment and granted summary judgment against former wife on her counter-petition for an increase in alimony. The trial court found that the MSA only allowed a modification of alimony in the event that custody was modified.

On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (“Fourth DCA”) examined whether the trial court was correct in construing the MSA such that modification of custody was a condition precedent that was required before alimony could be modified. The Court noted that the law does not favor conditions precedent and requires they be unambiguous, and that the MSA’s language specifically allowed for the modification of alimony if custody was modified but did not restrict modification of alimony to those circumstances. The Court held that modification of custody was not a condition precedent. Additionally, the former wife had not waived modification of alimony. The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Cunha v. Cunha, 4D11-1892

The parties’ marriage was dissolved by a final judgment that incorporated a marital settlement agreement (“MSA”). The MSA gave the former husband the responsibility for paying a certain specific debt to a creditor, although the MSA did not specify the amount of that debt. The former wife filed a motion for contempt when the former husband failed to pay the debt. As a result, the trial court ordered the former husband to pay the debt, and named a specified amount of $5,722.

The former husband later fully settled the debt with the creditor by paying the creditor $2,400, an amount that was less than the total amount of the debt, and less than the $5,722 the trial court had ordered the former husband to pay. The former husband moved for relief from the $5,722 judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540(b)(5) on the grounds that the specifically identified debt on which the judgment was based had been satisfied. The former wife opposed the motion and argued that the former husband had not paid the amount ordered by the court, and that paying an amount less than what was owed negatively affected her credit and tax liability. The trial court denied the motion.

On appeal, the Fourth District Court of Appeal (“DCA”) concluded that the former husband had satisfied the MSA’s requirement that he pay the specific debt. The Fourth DCA noted that the MSA only specified the debt and did not list any specific amount. The court also stressed that the MSA did not prohibit former husband from negotiating the amount of the debt. The court reversed and remanded for the trial court to vacate the judgment.