54 So. 3d 553
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Marital settlement agreement signed Aug. 8, 2008; final judgment entered the same day.
- Paragraph 18 (Real Property) provided wife would quit-claim deed to husband, refinancing by husband within 120 days, and equalization payment to wife of $185,000.
- If husband failed to refinance within 120 days, home would be sold with net proceeds to husband.
- Husband failed to refinance or pay; wife refused cooperation with sale.
- Trial court voided paragraph 18 as impossibility due to market changes; wife appealed.
- Court reverses, enforcing the contract as written and remanding for enforcement proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether impossibility bars enforcement of paragraph 18. | Husband argues unforeseen market decline makes performance impossible. | Wife argues performance remains possible with sale or refinance. | Impossibility not satisfied; contract remains enforceable. |
| Whether the marital settlement agreement should be enforced as a contract. | Agreement binds parties to pay $185,000 and transfer property. | Courts should not rewrite provisions due to market changes. | Trial court erred; enforce the agreement as written. |
| What remedy flows if enforceable. | Wife entitled to $185,000 and occupancy protections. | Sale proceeds to follow terms; cooperation required. | Wife entitled to $185,000 and status/ownership as provided; remand for consistent proceedings. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCutcheon v. Tracy, 928 So.2d 364 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) (court may not rewrite contract to relieve improvident bargain)
- Beach Resort Hotel Corp. v. Wieder, 79 So.2d 659 (Fla.1955) (court may not relieve hardship by altering contract terms)
- Life Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Cichowlas, 659 So.2d 1333 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (silence on matter not to impose omitted duties)
- Home Design Ctr.-Joint Venture v. County Appliances of Naples, Inc., 563 So.2d 767 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990) (economic downturns are not always impossibility; risk lies where reasonably contemplated)
- Casella v. Casella, 569 So.2d 848 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990) (reversible error on face of judgment without transcript may justify reversal)