compare judge alexanders alimony order and taylor v lutz
DESCRIPTION
Florida General Magistrate Mensh finds former wife in contempt, and the Judge who appointed the Magistrate doesn't ? My former wife and the Judge's wife have the same employer.. plus I tried to recuse him...simply put..Judge Alexander is full of shit and he knows it..TRANSCRIPT
TAYLOR v LUTZ, FLORIDA FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 2014 ( ALIMONY )Former Wife has appealed the trial court's post-dissolution Amended Order on Former Wife's Amended Motion for Contempt, to Enforce, and for Attorney's Fees, and from the court's Order Granting Attorney's Fees. As her first point on appeal, Former Wife argues the trial court erred in finding the parties' Marital Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) unambiguously provided for bridge-the-gap alimony as contemplated in section 61.08(5), Florida Statutes (2010), and, therefore, erred in refusing to enforce the provision because of her remarriage. Former Wife's second point challenges the trial court's award of fees to her attorney in the reduced amount of $1000, claiming the court failed initially to determine a lodestar amount. For the reasons that follow, we reverse on both points.This short-term marriage, having lasted approximately four and one half years, was dissolved in May 2010 by final judgment in which the MSA was adopted and incorporated. As regards Former Wife's first point, paragraph 2.1 of the agreement sets forth the following provision for alimony:ALIMONY. The Husband shall pay to the Wife Bridge–the–Gap alimony which is non-modifiable in the amount of $500 .00 a month for three (3) years. The first payment [is] due on May 20th and every month thereafter. - See more at: ( http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1662833.html#sthash.9PLHZtpE.dpuf )
Walsh v Walsh DR07-1665 (MSA) pertaining to nonmodifiable lump sum alimony :
Excerpt from the Florida First District Court of Appeal Decision:
“A marital settlement agreement is a contract subject to interpretation like any other contract. Delissio v. Delissio, 821 So. 2d 350, 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002). . . . Where an agreement’s terms are unambiguous, a court must treat the written instrument as evidence of the agreement's meaning and the parties’ intention. Id. A court must not isolate a single term or group of words and read that part in isolation. Id. Rather, the goal is to arrive at a reasonable interpretation of the text of the entire agreement in order to accomplish the agreement's stated meaning and purpose.
