Case Name: Benjamin GREENWALD, as Executor of the Estate of Jeanne Blume, Deceased, Appellant, v. Jack T. BLUME, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1975-05-13
Citations: 312 So. 2d 783
Docket Number: No. 74-699
Parties: Benjamin GREENWALD, as Executor of the Estate of Jeanne Blume, Deceased, Appellant, v. Jack T. BLUME, Appellee.
Judges: Before HENDRY, HAVERFlELD and NATHAN, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 312
Pages: 783–785

Head Matter:
Benjamin GREENWALD, as Executor of the Estate of Jeanne Blume, Deceased, Appellant, v. Jack T. BLUME, Appellee.
No. 74-699.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
May 13, 1975.
Shorenstein & Lewis, Miami Beach, for appellant.
Garber & Buoniconti, Miami, for appel-lee.
Before HENDRY, HAVERFlELD and NATHAN, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal taken by the plaintiff in the trial court from three separate orders rendered by the court which effectively enter final judgment adverse to the plaintiff.
The record shows that in May, 1973, Jeanne Blume, the decedent, filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against the appellee, Jack T. Blume. The petition specifically requested that the court incorporate into any final judgment the terms of a property settlement agreement entered into between the parties.
Shortly thereafter, on July 26, 1973, Mrs. Blume died and the appellant Benjamin Greenwald, the decedent's son, was appointed executor of the estate.
Subsequently, on August 7, 1973, an amended complaint was filed against the appellee seeking declaratory and other equitable relief.
Following an evidentiary hearing, the trial judge entered the three orders appealed.
Among the findings entered by the court which are germane to this appeal were, first, that the obligations contained in the property settlement agreement were subject to a condition precedent, to-wit: a final judgment of dissolution of marriage; and, second, that the appellee did not deliberately or otherwise frustrate the performance of the condition precedent.
Next, the trial court found that certain furniture, furnishings and personalty located in a Miami Beach apartment in which Jeanne and Jack Blume lived while married was owned by the couple as tenants by the entireties.
Accordingly, the court found that by operation of law the sole right of ownership vested in the appellee upon the death of Jeanne Blume.
The appellant has raised six points on appeal strenuously objecting to the trial court's findings and conclusions of law. We have carefully considered each point in the light of the record, pleadings, briefs and the applicable law.
It is our opinion that the appellant has not demonstrated any reversible error.
On appeal, the construction placed on a contract (including property settlement agreements) reaches us with a presumption of correctness. See, Hall v. Hall, Fla.App.1961, 135 So.2d 432. And, like other contracts, the polestar guiding the court's determination should be the intention of the parties. Ibid.
In the instant case, we think the court correctly concluded, based upon the testimony before him, that the agreement was intended to take effect upon entry of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage.
We do not agree with the appellant's contention that such testimony should have been excluded because of the parol evidence rule, since the evidence was offered to show the existence of a condition precedent to the agreement. See, Northwestern Bank v. Cortner, Fla.App. 1973, 275 So.2d 317.
Our examination of the record in this case leads us to conclude that the court's other findings are supported by competent substantial evidence; and, therefore, the judgment appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.