- 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 notPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011