"The tiniest words can have the greatest consequence" in Florida prenuptial agreements

Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Prenuptial Agreements

In the appellate case Famiglio v. Famiglio, 2D18-467 (Fla. 2d DCA May 10, 2019), the court began its written opinion with the statement “The tiniest words can have the greatest consequence.” This thought rings true in this case where the decision turned on the word “a” in a prenuptial agreement which affected the former wife’s entitlement to $1.5 million.

The parties entered a prenuptial agreement. The part of the agreement at issue in the appeal involved the payment of lump sum alimony to the wife in the event of the parties’ divorce. The parties’ agreement read in pertinent part:

“5.1. In the event the marriage of the parties is dissolved by a court of competent jurisdiction, then the parties shall have no obligation to make payments of any kind or for any purpose to or on behalf of the other, except as specifically set forth in Paragraph 5.2 and 5.3.

5.3. JENNIE's Benefits and Obligations. If the marriage ends by dissolution of marriage or an action for dissolution of marriage is pending at the time of MARK's death, then JENNIE shall receive the additional benefits and obligations described in 5.3.a. through d.

a. MARK shall pay to JENNIE, within ninety (90) days of the date either party files a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage the amount listed below next to the number of full years they have been married at the time a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage is filed.”

According to the appellate opinion, “Section 5.3.a. [of the agreement] included two columns reflecting a gradually escalating schedule of money for each full year of marriage. Thus, for example, if a petition for dissolution of marriage were filed after seven full years of marriage, the Wife would receive $2.7 million; if a petition were filed after ten full years of marriage, the Wife would receive $4.2 million.”

After the parties had been married seven full years, the wife filed a petition for divorce. However, she never served the petition on the husband and subsequently voluntarily dismissed it. After the parties were married ten full years, the wife filed her second petition for divorce, and this time served the husband. The husband then brought a declaratory action, requesting that the trial court treat the first date the wife filed for divorce as the operative date for interpreting how much alimony she was to receive under the prenuptial agreement. After a hearing, the trial court concluded the provision of the agreement referring to the filing of “a” petition for dissolution meant one that resulted in the entry of a final judgment of divorce. The husband appealed, urging the appellate court to interpret “a” to mean “any”, and therefore to determine the wife’s alimony based on her first petition for divorce.

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s order, holding the terms of the parties’ prenuptial agreement were clear and unambiguous. The appellate court reasoned, “In common parlance, predicating a condition on ‘when something occurs’ or ‘at the time something occurs,’ is normally understood to mean the first time that the something occurs. This is so because conditional statements such as these are made with a view towards the future, as a way of indicating that a consequent condition will arise from a future condition's occurrence. And since the future cannot be known (except in hindsight), we would ordinarily read a provision like section 5.3.a. to align with the way we experience the passing of temporal events; that is, we would consider the future condition's first occurrence to be the operative one, even if it is a condition that might be capable of repetition. Thus, a golf course's rule, ‘when a thunderstorm approaches, you must end your golf game,’ would be universally understood to mean the first time a thunderstorm approaches. Certainly, more than one storm might come and go throughout the day, but the rule would make little sense if it were construed to mean whichever storm the golfer chooses, so long as the game is ended. That is how section 5.3.a. must be understood. Its natural meaning and frame of reference is to tie, prospectively, a variable sum of alimony on the singular occurrence of the filing of ‘a petition’ for dissolution of marriage, which, in its most usual sense, would mean the first time such a petition is filed. In this case, that occurred on March 25, 2013.”

Entering a prenuptial agreement requires careful consideration of the language used throughout the agreement. Making sure the words capture your true intent is important. This is why you should seek the assistance of a Miami prenuptial agreement lawyer as soon as possible after you become engaged. A consultation may be your first best step in determining what provisions will best serve your interests.