FERGUSON V. FERGUSON 54 So.3d 553 (2011) CASE BRIEF

FERGUSON V. FERGUSON

54 So.3d 553 (2011)

NATURE OF THE CASE: This is an appeal from an order voiding a provision of a mediated marital settlement agreement as a result of changes in the economy.

FACTS: A mediated marital settlement agreement was signed between H and W and the final judgment of dissolution entered on August 8, 2008. The deal included a provision to pay W $185,000 as an equalization payment for the marital home. The agreement obligated W to execute and deposit a quitclaim deed in escrow with H's counsel upon execution of the marital settlement agreement, which she did. H was required to pay W an 'equalization payment' of $185,000 (subject to minor adjustments) within sixty days of the date the agreement was executed. The plain language of the agreement establishes that its object was (1) to bring about an unconditional payment of $185,000 to W; (2) achieve an ownership transfer of the property to H; and (3) relieve W of any further financial responsibility for the property contemporaneously with the transfer. In paragraph (E) of the agreement, the failure of H to refinance the property within 120 days of the execution of the agreement called for the house to be put up for sale with the net proceeds going to H. Shortly after August 8, 2008, and apparently unanticipated by H, the Florida real estate market entered into one of its periodic downward adjustments, for which it has become famous since the time of the Great Depression. H neither paid his former wife the approximate $185,000 equalization payment nor tried to refinance the house. H unilaterally sought to list the house for sale with a realtor, but W, who has lived in the home with the parties' minor child, has not cooperated. W filed a motion for contempt and enforcement of paragraph eighteen, specifically for the payment of $185,000 and the refinancing of the house. H filed a motion requesting the trial court to order W to cooperate with the sale of the home pursuant to the parties' agreement. The trial court declared paragraph eighteen 'to be an impossibility of performance due to changes in the economy and therefore void.' The court further ordered W to vacate the home, that the home be appraised, and finally that it immediately be listed for sale with the net proceeds divided between the parties. W appeals.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner