- 31 -
John's monthly payments to Faye would terminate upon her
remarriage or death. Payments received pursuant to a property
settlement generally are not subject to contingencies and do not
terminate upon the death of the payee. Instead, the obligation
to pay is generally "absolute." See McCombs v. Commissioner, 397
F.2d 4, 8 (10th Cir. 1968), affg. T.C. Memo. 1967-124.
Similarly, Florida law provides that a property settlement
agreement represents a final division of property, which is not
subject to modification absent proof of fraud, duress, deceit,
coercion, or overreaching by the other party. See, e.g., Baker
v. Baker, 394 So. 2d 465, 466 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1981); Zedeck
v. Zedeck, 334 So. 2d 87, 88 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976).
Second, nothing in the Stipulation and the Final Judgment
stated that John's obligation to make the requisite payments was
secured by any of his assets. The absence of this factor is a
further indication that the payments were intended for Faye's
support. Benedict v. Commissioner, supra at 578; Beard v.
Commissioner, supra at 1285.
Third, there is no credible evidence that the amount of the
payments plus the other property awarded to Faye pursuant to the
Stipulation and Final Judgment equals approximately one-half of
the property accumulated by the parties during marriage. In
addition, given the manner in which the payments in issue were
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