Case ID: so2d_507/html/1153-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William L. BACON, Appellant, v. Mary E. BACON, Appellee.
    No. 86-1089.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    May 12, 1987.
    Rehearing Denied June 16, 1987.
    Cooper, Wolfe & Bolotin and Marc Cooper, Miami, for appellant.
    Lapidus & Frankel and Richard Lapidus, Miami, for appellee.
    Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
   PER CURIAM.

The trial court reformed the parties’ property settlement agreement to reflect their true intent. We reject appellant’s contention that Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 precluded the trial court from reforming the agreement. See Gobelman v. Gobelman, 303 So.2d 646 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), cert. denied, 316 So.2d 561 (1975); see also Sheffield v. Barry, 153 Fla. 144, 14 So.2d 417 (1943); Dagnino v. Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 183 So.2d 846, 849 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. denied, 188 So.2d 821 (Fla.1966). Appellant’s remaining point lacks merit. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.