John F. Daugharty and Sarah R. Daugharty - Page 26

                                                - 26 -                                                   

            of an adverse party.  Faye's motion presents her allegations of                              
            misconduct on the part of John.  John's motion to dismiss and                                
            memorandum in support thereof discuss the requirements imposed by                            
            rule 1.540 of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure and set forth                             
            John's various arguments as to why Faye failed to satisfy these                              
            requirements.  The Fourth Judicial Circuit filed an order on                                 
            December 8, 1981, which stated only that John's motion to dismiss                            
            was granted, while Faye's motion to set aside property settlement                            
            agreement was denied.  The District Court of Appeal affirmed in                              
            an unpublished per curiam opinion.                                                           
                  In his January 12, 1982, Motion to Dismiss, filed in                                   
            response to Faye's January 11, 1982, Motion for Modification and                             
            Enforcement of Final Judgment, John asserted that the parties'                               
            agreement constituted a nonmodifiable property settlement                                    
            agreement under Florida law.  Nevertheless, the relevant portion                             
            of the Fourth Judicial Circuit's April 1, 1983, Order Ruling on                              
            Motions simply stated:                                                                       

                  the Wife's Amended Motion for Modification and                                         
                  Enforcement of Final Judgment and the Wife's Second                                    
                  Amended Contempt Notice are unsubstantiated by the                                     
                  evidence, and the Husband has paid all that was                                        
                  required to be paid by him under the terms of the Final                                
                  Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage.  [Emphasis added.]                                

            The District Court of Appeal affirmed in an unpublished per                                  
            curiam opinion.                                                                              






Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011