Case Name: William L. BACON, Appellant, v. Mary E. BACON, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1987-05-12
Citations: 507 So. 2d 1153
Docket Number: No. 86-1089
Parties: William L. BACON, Appellant, v. Mary E. BACON, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, BASKIN and DANIEL S. PEARSON, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 507
Pages: 1153–1154

Head Matter:
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.

Opinion:
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.