Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Prenuptial Agreements

When it is time to enforce a prenuptial agreement, the court will rely on the clear and unambiguous terms of the agreement in determining what is owed to either party. If the parties agree to resolve their disputes via arbitration in their prenuptial agreement, this may complicate how a divorce is finalized. This was an issue in the case Darling-Ill v. Ill, 4D2022-2433 (Fla. 4th DCA November 1, 2023).

The parties entered a prenuptial agreement which stated in part that the former husband would pay to the former wife $1,465,000 in alimony - $465,000 within 45 days of a final judgment of dissolution and $1,000,000 within 60 days of a final judgment of dissolution. The agreement also required the parties to attend arbitration concerning interpretation of the agreement. Arbitration was to be paid for upfront by the former husband but he could reduce any amounts owed to the former wife under the prenuptial agreement by half of the cost of arbitration. The former wife moved for bifurcation of the case and the court granted a dissolution of marriage. She then sought to enforce payment of the amounts due under the agreement, but the former husband countered that her motion was premature because the parties had not yet been to arbitration and therefore there was no way to determine what specifically was owed to the former wife. The trial court denied the former wife’s motion without explanation. After arbitration was completed, the former wife filed her renewed motion to enforce the payments, but the trial court denied it under the doctrine of res judicata. The former wife appealed.

The appellate court noted “Res judicata applies if there is a prior adjudication that has: “1) identity in the thing sued for; 2) identity of the cause of action; 3) identity of persons and parties of the action; and 4) identity of the quality in the person for or against whom the claim is made.” Dep’t of Revenue ex rel. Cowie v. Orlowski, 184 So. 3d 1200, 1202 (Fla. 4th DCA 2016).” The court continued “In the instant case, Former Husband has not met his burden of showing that the denial of Former Wife’s first motion to enforce was a ‘clear cut’ adjudication on the merits. The trial court’s order did not explain why it denied the motion, and both parties have admitted that they do not know why the trial court denied the motion." Former Husband argued that Former Wife’s initial motion to enforce was premature because (1) Former Wife’s lump sum payments were required to be reduced by half of whatever Former Husband spent on arbitration and Former Wife’s attorney’s fees, and (2) the final dissolution judgment was not yet a ‘final judgment of dissolution of marriage’ under the Agreement, as issues remained set for arbitration. Nothing in the record shows the trial court denied Former Wife’s motion to enforce on the merits. Instead, the trial court clearly relied on Former Husband’s argument that arbitration should be concluded before determining ‘who owes what.’ Therefore, the trial court erred in applying res judicata to Former Wife’s renewed motion to enforce.”

Schedule your consultation with a Miami family law attorney to understand how the law may apply to the facts of your case.