Chovan v. Chovan
90 So. 3d 898
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Former husband and wife were married with three children and filed for dissolution of marriage.
- During a trial break the parties reached a settlement, with the wife’s counsel reciting it on the record.
- Settlement contemplated sale of the marital home after the oldest child graduated high school the following year.
- The agreement provided: husband pays ongoing expenses and alimony and child support after sale; two children used for calculation of support; attorney fees paid from sale proceeds; life insurance required.
- The court instructed the parties to submit a proposed final judgment; the wife’s proposed judgment largely reflected the settlement.
- The husband later contended the final judgment did not reflect the settlement, particularly on alimony duration, child support, and sale-proceeds distribution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consistency of child support with the settlement | Link argues three children used in final judgment despite two in agreement. | Wife argues final judgment aligns with the settlement overall. | Remand for proper child support based on two children and possible income imputation. |
| Alimony duration | Link contends the duration differs from the settlement. | Wife contends alimony duration is supported by the record as stated. | Remand to determine alimony length consistent with the settlement and section 61.08. |
| Distribution of sale proceeds for the marital home | Link claims the final judgment improperly allocates sale proceeds versus settlement. | Wife argues judgment reflects the agreed distribution. | Reverse and remand to reflect the settlement terms on sale proceeds and attorney fees. |
| Imputation of income for purposes of child support | Link objects to lack of imputed income for the wife. | Wife contends no change necessary beyond the settlement terms. | Remand to allow court to impute income if appropriate. |
| Life insurance requirement | Link does not challenge life insurance requirement. | Wife argues life insurance is properly required by the settlement. | Affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffith v. Griffith, 860 So.2d 1069 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003) (settlement agreements are highly favored and binding)
- Shrove v. Shrove, 724 So.2d 679 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (imputing income for child support when appropriate)
- Dowie v. Dowie, 668 So.2d 290 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (preemption of unnecessary findings when settlement exists)
- Casto v. Casto, 508 So.2d 330 (Fla. 1987) (honors binding effect of settlements and limits spontaneous modification)
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 1980) (foundational doctrine on consideration of marital settlement agreements)
- Ondrejack v. Ondrejack, 839 So.2d 867 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (alimony abuse-of-discretion standard and related considerations)
- McKenna v. McKenna, 31 So.3d 890 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (child support reviewed for abuse of discretion)