- 10 -
specifically including those of death or remarriage.” Boyd v.
Boyd, 478 So. 2d 356, 357 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985); see also
Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra at 1201 (“Although the award of
lump sum alimony is not dependent upon a finding of a prior
vested right, there does arise upon the entry of a final judgment
of a lump sum award a vested right which is neither terminable
upon a spouse’s remarriage or death nor subject to
modification.”).
In the present case, the settlement agreement required
petitioner to pay his former spouse lump-sum alimony in eleven
installments of $660. The settlement agreement further provided
that petitioner pay his former spouse’s automobile lease payments
and SBA loan payments until September 1, 2000. The number of
payments and the amount of each payment were fixed and certain.
Thus, the payments under the settlement agreement were not
subject to modification or termination in the event of any
contingency. Since these payments meet the requirements for
lump-sum alimony set forth in Canakaris v. Canakaris, supra, and
Boyd v. Boyd, supra, it follows that they would have remained
payable to the former spouse’s estate in the event of her death.
See Human v. Commissioner, supra.
Accordingly, we hold that the lump-sum alimony payments,
automobile lease payments, and SBA loan payments made by
petitioner under the terms of the settlement agreement are not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011