- 27 -
We do not find in the above statement of the Fourth Judicial
Circuit an acceptance of John's argument that the Stipulation and
Final Judgment constituted a nonmodifiable property settlement
agreement. Indeed, the reference to Faye's failure of proof
suggests otherwise. Moreover, we note that the court did not
have to make such a finding in order to decide against Faye.
John had presented various other arguments that appear to have
been the basis for the court's action.
In her complaint in case number 82-12416-CA, filed October
15, 1982, Faye again attempted to set aside the Stipulation and
Final Judgment pursuant to rule 1.540(b) of the Florida Rules of
Civil Procedure for fraud upon the court. In her complaint, Faye
maintained that John's financial affidavit, filed in connection
with the parties' divorce agreement, was fraudulent in that it
understated John's assets. John's answer asserted, among other
things, that Faye's complaint had failed to state a cause of
action upon which relief could be granted, and the issues had
previously been ruled upon by the Fourth Judicial Circuit in case
number 81-112-CA.
Although the Fourth Judicial Circuit granted summary
judgment for Faye and vacated most of the parties' Stipulation
and Final Judgment, including Faye's conveyance of her interest
in the Landon Imperial Apartments, the District Court of Appeal
reversed this decision. See Daugharty v. Daugharty, 456 So. 2d
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011