child. Cohen reasoned that if a set-off of social security benefits had been intended, provision therefor should have been made in the settlement agreement which required child support. Similarly, in the case before us, if the intentions of the parties had been to permit a set-off for social security payments, the settlement agreement should have so provided. See Craver v. Craver, 649 S.W.2d 440 (Mo.1983) (refusing to permit, as a matter of law, a set-off of social security payments to the wife drawn on the husband’s account against support payments owed by the husband). We are cognizant of the husband’s argument that the wife waived her right to full alimony by not objecting to the reduced payments for approximately fifteen months. See Stephenson v. Stephenson, 52 So.2d 684 (Fla.1951) (<HOLDING>). But waiver is the intentional relinquishment
holding waiver did not preclude rule 32d motion challenging validity of waiver due to ineffective assistance of counsel holding class action waiver to be enforceable under section 2 of the faa notwithstanding claim that waiver was unconscionable under state law holding that the waiver in two previous contracts was insufficient to support waiver of the contract at issue in that appeal recognizing that courts will enforce waiver of appeal rights when waiver is knowing and voluntary recognizing waiver by acquiescence as a possible defense to an action for past due alimony but finding no waiver under the facts presented