FERRARO v. FERRARO (2005)

District Court of Appeal of Florida,Third District.

Diane FERRARO n/k/a Diane Deighton, Appellant, v. James L. FERRARO, Appellee.

No. 3D03-2573.

Decided: February 02, 2005

Before GERSTEN, GREEN, and WELLS, JJ.

Kohlman Hamlin LLP and Robert F. Kohlman, Miami, for appellant. Dino G. Galardi, Miami, for appellee.

The former wife appeals from the trial court's dismissal of her petition for modification of alimony. For the following reasons, we affirm.

Viewed as a whole, we find that the language used in the parties' post-nuptial agreement, incorporated into the final judgment of dissolution of marriage, indicates a clear intention that the agreed-upon alimony provisions control and that their terms would be modifiable only as provided by the agreement. Thus, “[t]he trial court, having approved and adopted all provisions of the agreement, was without jurisdiction, and correctly refused to undertake modification. We, too, have neither the authority nor the power to alter or reform the parties' agreement.” Agliano v. Agliano, 605 So.2d 597, 598 (Fla. 2d DCA 1992). See also Cunningham v. Cunningham, 499 So.2d 880, 882 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986) (“It is well-established that the statutory right to petition for modification of an alimony award may be intentionally or impliedly waived and that the waiver may be stated in express terms or through interpretation of the agreement as a whole.”).

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.

Explore the Network