260 So. 2d 876 | Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 1972
This case presents the question of the continuation of alimony after the death of the husband. Appellant Madge Dennis was awarded $200 per month alimony, “. . . for the rest of her life or until she remarries . . .,” upon her divorce from John Shields in 1966. John Shields paid the sums ordered until his death on February 9, 1970, at which time payments ceased. It is stipulated that the deceased had never contested the alimony allowance and, further, that there was no express contract in writing between the parties providing for the payment of alimony beyond the death of the husband.
Madge’s guardian brought this action against John’s estate seeking to “enforce” the foregoing provision of the final decree
Preliminarily, we have no trouble in construing the alimony award in the divorce decree as providing for alimony payments after the death of the husband if the wife outlived him. The decree provided for alimony “for the rest of her life” and the only condition imposed was that she not remarry. In Johnson v. Every,
“. . . the husband’s estate remains liable for the obligation in the same manner as it is liable for any other legitimate obligation outstanding at the time of his death.”
But our inquiry cannot stop there. The more fundamental question is whether such an award is permissible in the absence of an agreement or stipulation. Appellee correctly points out that the pronouncements of our Supreme Court in Aldrich v. Aldrich,
Were this the sole teaching of Aldrich we would be required to affirm. However, Aldrich holds further that when the husband did not appeal from the decree, and had paid the amounts specified therein without question for many years, he had in effect consented to all its provisions respecting alimony. The decree thus became final and is “not now subject to collateral attack.”
Reversed.
. (Fla.1957), 93 So.2d 390, 392.
. (Fla.1964), 163 So.2d 276.
. Id. at p. 280.
. Id. at p. 284.