Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
What is a joint pretrial statement in a Florida family law case? This is a document jointly filed by the parties which contains their agreement regarding certain issues in the case, such as facts which are not in dispute and a listing of the issues for the court to decide at trial. A joint pretrial statement is binding on the court and the parties, so when action is taken that is contradictory to the statement, error might occur. This was an issue in the case Waite v. Milo-Waite, 4D22-423 (Fla. 4th DCA April 5, 2023).
After the former husband filed a petition for divorce, the parties entered a partial marital settlement agreement which left alimony and child support to be decided by the court. The agreement had a clause which stated “[t]o the extent, if any, the [p]arties are unaware of the full nature and extent of the income, assets, liabilities and expenses of the other, they waive their right to full disclosure thereof and release their respective counsel from the duty of making full and further inquiry.” [However,] [i]n the event that any marital property has been willfully concealed or undervalued by one of the [p]arties, the [p]arty concealing the property or undervaluing the property shall pay to the other [p]arty, a sum equal to fifty percent (50%) of the full value of the property as of the date of th[e] Agreement.”
The parties proceeded to exchange financial affidavits and filed a joint pretrial statement which stated only one dispute related to the former wife’s self-employment income. However at trial, the former wife raised the issue of about $16,000 the former husband received as payment from his employment. She argued that this amount was concealed because it was not disclosed in the former husband’s financial affidavit. The former husband responded that the money was not concealed and had been used to renovate the marital home and on a family vacation. The former wife did not deny this, but testified that she was unaware of how the remainder was spent. A final judgment was entered which found that former husband willfully concealed the payment, ordering that it be equally divided between the parties. The order also made findings concerning the parties’ gross incomes and ordered alimony and child support to be paid based on these amounts. Last in contradiction to the the partial agreement reached by the parties, the former husband was ordered to pay 70% of certain expenses related to the children. The former husband appealed.
Using de novo review to analyze the trial court’s interpretation of the partial marital settlement agreement, the appellate court noted “‘[W]hen a court incorporates a settlement agreement into a final judgment or approves a settlement agreement by order and retains jurisdiction to enforce its terms, the court has the jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement . . . . [H]owever, the extent of the court’s continuing jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the settlement agreement is circumscribed by the terms of that agreement.’ Paulucci v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 842 So. 2d 797, 803 (Fla. 2003). Although a trial court may be motivated to do what it considers to be fair and equitable, it retains no jurisdiction to rewrite the terms of a marital settlement agreement.”
As to the trial court’s finding that the former husband willfully concealed the $16,000 payment, the appellate court held “At the onset, it should be noted that ‘[a] stipulation that limits the issues to be tried ‘amounts to a binding waiver and elimination of all issues not included.’’ [internal citations omitted]. Here, whether this asset was concealed or undervalued was not an issue to be litigated. The issue was not raised in the pleadings, and the joint pretrial statement does not list it as an issue to be tried. Nor are we convinced that the issue was tried by implied consent, given Former Husband’s argument during redirect examination that the trial court could not consider this issue. Even assuming that this issue was properly raised, no evidence existed to show that the asset was willfully concealed or undervalued. The asset was not concealed, because Former Wife admitted she knew about the payment. Moreover, Former Husband testified without contradiction that the payment was disclosed within the documents delivered prior to signing the PMSA. Nor was the payment undervalued on Former Husband’s financial affidavit because the asset did not exist when he filed that document. Former Husband testified, and Former Wife admitted in her own testimony, that the asset had been spent on house renovations and vacations. Accordingly, the trial court erred in finding that Former Husband had willfully concealed or undervalued the $16,620.47 payment.”
Moving on to the income used to calculate child support and alimony, the appellate court found error where the parties’ joint pretrial statement listed the parties’ respective incomes, but the trial court used a different income amount for the former husband. The court also found error where the parties’ gross incomes, rather than net incomes, were used for support calculations. Last, the appellate court reversed the ruling that the former husband pay 70% of the children’s expenses because this contradicted the pro rata share indicated in the parties’ partial settlement agreement.
If you need assistance enforcing or interpreting a marital settlement agreement, contact a Miami divorce lawyer for a consultation.