- 7 -
“reasonable monthly living expenses” and “temporary relief” in a
temporary relief order could not support a contract claim by the
payee spouse after the payor spouse’s death. The court stated:
The order was a temporary relief order, a non-permanent
agreement. It is clearly established that the obligation to
pay permanent alimony dies with the obligated party, so that
to overcome this general rule, “there must be an express
indication of an intention to the contrary” in an agreement
between the parties. A temporary relief order carries less
of a suggestion of permanency than an award of permanent
alimony. No reading of the temporary relief order implied
that David intended that support payments referenced in the
order were to continue after his death.
Id. at 460 (citation omitted). Similarly, in this case nothing
in the temporary order indicates an intention that the support
payments were to continue after petitioner’s death.
Based upon our analysis of Florida law, we hold that Mr.
Reed’s obligation to make the payments under the temporary order
would have ceased upon petitioner’s death by operation of law.
Petitioner argues that these six $4,000 payments are
properly characterized as child support payments. Portions of
payments “which the terms of the divorce or separation instrument
fix (in terms of an amount of money or a part of the payment) as
a sum which is payable for the support of children of the payor
spouse”, sec. 71(c)(1), are not included in the definition of
alimony or separate maintenance payments. See sec. 71(c)(1);
Ambrose v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-128. Nothing in the
order fixes any portion of the $4,000 payments as child support.
Petitioner asserts that the support she had sought from the court
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011