Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce

The words used (or not used) in a Florida marital settlement agreement are important. A court cannot rewrite the terms of the parties’ contract and must enforce the clear terms “as-is”. This is why it is important to be sure your agreement says what you mean. This was an issue in the case Grey v. Grey, 5D20-1809 (Fla. 5th DCA July 23, 2021).

After approximately 8 years of divorce litigation, the spouses who were both in the horse industry, came to a settlement agreement during the middle of their trial. The agreement was memorialized in the form of a three page writing which summarized the terms. The agreement was read into the record in court and the parties intended to enter a more formal written agreement as to these terms at a later date. After five months, the formal agreement was not entered, so the trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution incorporating the summary and the agreement read into the record in court.

The agreement called for the former wife to transfer $100,000.00 from her retirement account to the former husband “after transfer documents are completed for paragraph (2) below”. Paragraph 2 of the agreement stated the former husband was to receive 2 paintings. A later paragraph called for the former wife to receive certain awards for horses bred by the former husband. The former wife filed motions for rehearing and clarification, asserting that by the plain language of the agreement, she was not obligated to transfer the funds from her retirement account to the former husband until he transferred the awards for the horses to her. The trial court agreed with the former wife, reasoning it made no sense that the former wife’s obligation to transfer funds from her retirement account would be conditioned upon the former husband picking up paintings for his own benefit. The trial court essentially treated the reference to “paragraph (2) below” as a typo and interpreted the parties’ contract to reference the later paragraph regarding the awards. The former husband appealed.

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision, holding “While it seems unlikely that the parties actually intended for the retirement fund transfer to be contingent upon the horse paintings, there is nothing unclear about the terms of the agreement and the final judgment of dissolution. Both mandate in plain terms that Former Wife was to transfer the retirement funds after the transfer documents for the horse paintings were completed. By making the retirement fund transfer contingent upon the transfer of the horse awards, the trial court rewrote the final judgment and the agreement, changing the status quo. Such a change amounts to a substantive modification rather than a clarification, and as a result, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to provide the requested relief.”

If you need help drafting your Florida marital settlement agreement, schedule a consultation with a Miami divorce attorney. Making sure all essential terms are in the agreement, and that the terms are stated clearly is the first step to successful enforcement of your agreement.