When a marital settlement agreement is incorporated into a final judgment of dissolution, it is enforced as a judgment, and a court enforcing it may not add terms the judgment does not contain. On that basis the Sixth District Court of Appeal held on November 6, 2026, in Mateen v. Ariyo, No. 6D2025-1135, that a trial court erred by ordering a former wife to sign a quitclaim deed after the refinancing deadline for the former husband had passed. Judge Nardella wrote the opinion, joined by Judges White and Brownlee. The court reversed.
The agreement
Under the parties’ April 10, 2024 agreement, the Charlotte County marital home would become the former husband’s sole and separate property. He was solely responsible for the mortgage and had to “use his best efforts to refinance said mortgage so as to remove the [Former] Wife’s name from the mortgage.” If he could not or did not refinance within 180 days of the agreement, the property was to be “immediately listed for sale and sold at fair market value,” with the proceeds deposited into a trust for the minor children.
The enforcement motion
About a year after signing, and about six months after the deadline, the former husband filed an emergency motion to enforce the judgment. He said he was trying to finalize a refinance but the former wife was refusing to sign a quitclaim deed the lender required. The former wife answered that because he missed the deadline, the home had to be sold. The trial court disagreed and, in an unelaborated order, compelled her to sign the deed.
Quitclaim deed after the refinancing deadline
Reviewing de novo, the court said the incorporated agreement made the husband’s continued ownership depend on refinancing within 180 days of April 10, 2024. The undisputed record showed he did not, and he did not argue that the former wife’s refusal kept him from meeting the deadline. Nothing in the judgment required her to sign a quitclaim deed so he could refinance late. The court rejected his reading that the deadline only required him to begin refinancing, saying it “alters the plain language of the judgment.” A footnote adds that even on his reading, reversal would follow because he made no claim and offered no evidence that he began refinancing within 180 days.
What this does and does not mean
The court held only that this order contravened this judgment’s language. It did not decide how or when the home must now be sold, whether the former husband could seek relief from the judgment itself, or whether the parties could agree to a different arrangement. The opinion lists counsel for the former husband and shows the former wife appearing without one. It is not final until the time for a motion for rehearing expires and any timely motion is resolved.
Related decisions: Can You File a Motion to Disqualify Opposing Counsel Over a Fee Mortgage After 11 Months? Not on These Facts, the Third DCA Says Can a Court Assign 100% of Business Debt in Equitable Distribution When the Couple Owns 51%? Not on This Record, the Fifth DCA Says
Read the opinion (PDF): Download the opinion (PDF)
Source: Mateen v. Ariyo, No. 6D2025-1135 (Fla. 6th DCA Nov. 6, 2026). This article is general information, not legal advice.