Court Opinion

ID: 7545386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-07-29 05:33:34.355122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:23:55.536969
License: Public Domain

SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The trial court correctly held that, in contrast to the provision of the parties’ separation agreement and the final judgment of dissolution requiring the husband to provide a home for the wife and children, which we held in Forte v. Forte, 320 So.2d 446 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 351 So.2d 406 (Fla.1977), was a modifiable aspect of child support, the portion which grants the wife an option to purchase the home conferred a vested property right which is for that reason not subject to modification. Farkas v. Farkas, 426 So.2d 1213 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); see Peacock v. Peacock, 439 So.2d 984 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983). Accordingly, the order dismissing the husband’s application for modification of the option is
Affirmed.