Suarez v. Suarez
The Third DCA held that a $300,000 'alimony' obligation in a marital settlement agreement was unambiguously a non-modifiable lump sum payment effecting equitable distribution of the parties' interest in a church, real property, and business, not support alimony. Because the MSA was unambiguous, the trial court erred in finding latent ambiguity and admitting parol evidence of intent, and it could not enforce the obligation by contempt. The court affirmed the payment-history findings and the rejection of the laches defense.
Key facts
- In a divorce proceeding, the former husband and wife entered into a marital settlement agreement that included a $300,000 payment obligation labeled 'alimony.'
- The trial court found the agreement ambiguous and admitted parol evidence regarding the parties' intent, ultimately treating the obligation as modifiable support alimony and enforcing it through contempt.
- +1 more key fact with a free trial
Why it matters
Useful authority for practitioners resisting contempt enforcement of settlement payment obligations that are captioned 'alimony' but in substance buy out a spouse's interest in marital assets. The opinion reinforces… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.