Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). · Go Syfert
Search
Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So. 2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“he appellate court on equal footing with the trial court as interpreter of the written document.”
49 citation events (38 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Advanced Design & Construction Co. v. Claude Zein (fladistctapp, 2024-10-16)
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996 2011 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 28 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Advanced Design & Construction Co. v. Claude Zein
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see also · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
he appellate court on equal footing with the trial court as interpreter of the written document.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) MATTHEW JAMES FENDRICH v. MARY MURPHY a/k/a MARY FENDRICH
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2023 · confidence medium
“A marital settlement agreement is a contract ‘subject to interpretation like any other contract.’” Elbaum v. Elbaum, 141 So. 3d 658, 661 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014) (quoting Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So. 2d 957, 958 (Fla. 2 1st DCA 1996)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Yvette D. Quillen, Former Wife v. William E. Quillen, Former Husband
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
Furthermore, “[i]nterpretation of a marital settlement agreement as with a contract is a matter of law putting the appellate court on equal footing with the trial court as interpreter of the written document.” Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So. 2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ANGELA KAY KIRSCHNER n/k/a ANGELA KAY RAMSIER v. JONATHAN JAY KIRSCHNER
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
“A settlement agreement should not be disturbed unless found to be ambiguous or in need of clarification, modification, or interpretation.” Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So. 2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) ANGELA KAY KIRSCHNER n/k/a ANGELA KAY RAMSIER v. JONATHAN JAY KIRSCHNER
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2018 · confidence medium
“A settlement agreement should not be disturbed unless found to be ambiguous or in need of clarification, modification, or interpretation.” Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So. 2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rolland A. Steele, Jr. v. Kamilah Prince
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2016 · confidence medium
The language in a mediation agreement should be' given its plain meaning and “ ‘not be disturbed unless found to be ambiguous or in need of clarification, modification, or interpretation.’ ” Id. (quoting Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Elbaum v. Elbaum
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2014 · confidence medium
Analysis A marital settlement agreement is a contract “ ‘subject to interpretation like any other contract.’ ” Riera v. Riera, 86 So.3d 1163, 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (quoting Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Toussaint v. Toussaint
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2013 · confidence medium
We have previously held that “[ijnterpretation of a marital settlement agreement as with a contract is a matter of law putting the appellate court on equal footing with the trial court as interpreter of the written document.” Delissio v. Delissio, 821 So.2d 350, 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (quoting Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company v. Lynn L. Cherry
11th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
“In construing a contract, the court should place itself as nearly as possible in the position of the parties when the contract was executed, and should consider the ob *920 ject sought to be accomplished by the agreement.” Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957, 959 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Riera v. Riera
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2012 · confidence medium
A marital settlement agreement is “subject to interpretation like any other contract.” Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); see also Bacardi v. Bacardi, 386 So.2d 1201, 1203 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (“Provisions of a property settlement agreement are interpreted by courts like any other contract.”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Irvin v. Irvin
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2011 · confidence medium
A mediation agreement that has been ratified by the trial court “is subject to interpretation like any other contract.” Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Schmachtenberg v. Schmachtenberg (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2010 · confidence medium
A marital settlement agreement that has been ratified by the trial court “is subject to interpretation like any other contract.” Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); see Levitt v. Levitt, 699 So.2d 755, 756 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (“It is well settled that a marital settlement agreement is subject to interpretation like any other contract.”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Muir v. Muir
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · confidence medium
See Ospina-Baraya; Delissio; Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Burkley v. Burkley
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2005 · confidence medium
"A settlement agreement should not be disturbed unless found to be ambiguous or in need of clarification, modification, or interpretation." Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Loy v. Loy
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2004 · confidence medium
See Gumberg v. Gumberg, 755 So.2d 710, 712 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999); Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Schafroth v. Schafroth, 610 So.2d 649 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Delissio v. Delissio (4×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2002 · confidence medium
"Interpretation of a marital settlement agreement as with a contract is a matter of law putting the appellate court on equal footing with the trial court as interpreter of the written document." Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); see also McIlmoil v. McIlmoil, 784 So.2d 557 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001).
cited Cited as authority (rule) McIlmoil v. McIlmoil
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2001 · confidence medium
See Bergman v. Bergman, 145 Fla. 10 , 199 So. 920, 921 (1940); Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Woodworth v. Woodworth, 385 So.2d 1024 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Zern v. Zern
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. Johnson
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · confidence medium
See Levitt v. Levitt, 699 So.2d 755, 756-57 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997); Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
discussed Cited "see" Chad Walker v. Julie Walker
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2025 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So. 2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (holding a marital settlement agreement should not be disturbed unless it is “found to be ambiguous or in need of clarification, modification, or interpretation”); Kipp v. Kipp, 844 So. 2d 691, 693 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003) (“[A] court must construe a contract in a manner that accords with reason and probability; and avoid an absurd construction.”). 2
cited Cited "see" ANDREW BOUKZAM v. JOSSI JUGO
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2020 · signal: see · confidence high
See Kirsch v. Kirsch, 933 So. 2d 623, 626 (Fla, 4th DCA 2008) (quoting Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So. 2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)).
cited Cited "see" Kirsch v. Kirsch
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
discussed Cited "see" Banyas v. Banyas
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)(holding that a marital settlement agreement entered into and ratified by a trial court is subject to interpretation like any other contract).
discussed Cited "see" Levitt v. Levitt (2×)
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
cited Cited "see" Steuart Petroleum v. Lloyd's London
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
cited Cited "see" Matthews v. Matthews
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1996 · signal: see · confidence high
See Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996); Whight v. Whight, 635 So.2d 135 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Pullo v. Pullo
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 2006 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See Geiger v. Geiger, 632 So.2d 693, 695 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); see also Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957, 958 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
cited Cited "see, e.g." Cassin v. Cassin
Fla. Dist. Ct. App. · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Ballantyne v. Ballantyne, 666 So.2d 957 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996).
Kathryn Ann BALLANTYNE, Appellant,
v.
Robert C. BALLANTYNE, Appellee.
95-587.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
Jan 8, 1996.
666 So. 2d 957
Per Curiam.
Cited by 35 opinions  |  Published

[*958] W. Gregg McCaulie of Hand, Drew, Showalter, Mercier, Kelly & McCaulie, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

W.K. Lally, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

In this appeal, appellant claims the trial court erred by denying her motion for modification of child support. Because the parties' unambiguous settlement agreement incorporated into the final judgment expressly permits appellant to request a modification to establish a child support amount under the guidelines and waives any requirement that she establish a change of circumstances, we agree and reverse.

In the instant case, the parties' marital settlement agreement gives appellant sole responsibility for their two minor children. One paragraph provides as follows:

The Husband shall pay to the Wife as and for child support for the minor children in the amount of $500.00 per month commencing on August 1, 1993, and continuing on the first day of each and every month thereafter until further order of this Court... . The parties recognize that this amount is below the Husband's share of money needed for the children under the child support guidelines. The Wife shall be able to modify the child support award without establishing a change of circumstances.

The final judgment of dissolution of marriage filed on July 22, 1993, incorporates this paragraph verbatim.

One year after the divorce and pursuant to the above-cited provision in the final judgment, appellant filed a motion to modify the child support award which requested that a child support amount be determined under the guidelines in section 61.30, Florida Statutes. Appellee opposed the modification, and a hearing was held. The court questioned the meaning of the last sentence of the child support paragraph — "The Wife shall be able to modify the child support award without establishing a change of circumstances" — and took testimony from the parties. Appellant testified that the clause meant that she could request a modification of child support that complied with the child support guidelines without showing a change of circumstances. The former husband testified that appellant had verbally agreed not to seek modification until the parties had paid off a consolidation loan they obtained to pay the debts of the marriage. In an order filed January 20, 1994, the court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to modify the child support award because there had been no showing of a substantial change of circumstances.

A trial court's decision on a modification of child support is subject to review under the abuse of discretion standard. League v. Lassiter, 536 So.2d 365 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988). A settlement agreement entered into and ratified by a trial court, however, is subject to interpretation like any other contract. See Altman v. Altman, 585 So.2d 1127, 1129 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991). Interpretation of a marital settlement agreement as with a contract is a matter of law putting the appellate court on equal footing with the trial court as interpreter of the written document. Geiger v. Geiger, 632 So.2d 693, 695 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994). A settlement agreement should not be disturbed unless found to be ambiguous or in need of clarification, modification, or interpretation. Bissell v. Bissell, 622 So.2d 532 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). In addition, contract terms are to be given their plain meaning absent any evidence that the parties intended the words to have a special meaning. Bingemann v. Bingemann, 551 So.2d 1228 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), review denied, 560 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1990). The court abuses its discretion when it makes an award contrary to a clear and unambiguous settlement agreement. Bissell, 622 So.2d at 533.

Having found the subject sentence regarding child support modification in the instant case to be ambiguous, the trial court below made no effort to clarify or interpret the sentence and chose instead to disregard the provision completely. This court has stated that

[i]t is fundamental that the court may not remake an agreement between the parties, and if there is any ambiguity, the agreement will be interpreted in accordance[*959] with the best interest of the child concerned. In construing a contract, the court should place itself as nearly as possible in the position of the parties when the contract was executed, and should consider the object sought to be accomplished by the agreement.

Bingemann v. Bingemann, 551 So.2d 1228, 1233 (Fla. 1st DCA 1989), review denied, 560 So.2d 232 (Fla. 1990) (citations omitted). We find no ambiguity in the subject child support provision. The parties are thus bound by the terms of their agreement. See Malone v. Malone, 637 So.2d 76, 76-77 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994); Adams v. Adams, 502 So.2d 1301 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987). We hold that the trial court abused its discretion by denying appellant's motion for modification of the child support award. The cause is reversed and remanded with directions that the trial court determine a child support amount for the husband pursuant to the guidelines in section 61.30, Florida Statutes.

MINER, WOLF and VAN NORTWICK, JJ., concur.