Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce

Once a marital settlement agreement is entered and ratified by a final judgment in a Florida divorce, there are limited circumstances under which the agreement can be set aside. The standard is different from an agreement that is entered outside of litigation, such as a prenuptial or postnuptial agreement. A challenge to a marital settlement agreement entered over a decade prior was an issue in the case O’Hair v. O’Hair, 6D23-2424 (Fla. 6th DCA April 4, 2024).

The parties entered a marital settlement agreement which required the former wife to make substantial payments to the former husband. This agreement was incorporated in a final judgment of divorce. Over a decade later, the former husband filed a motion for enforcement of the agreement, alleging the former wife stopped making the payments she agreed to make. The former wife countered that the agreement should be set aside because it was inequitable to enforce, that she was under coercion when she signed it, and the former husband filed a fraudulent financial affidavit, among other arguments. The former husband argued the former wife was time-barred from challenging the agreement under the rules of procedure. The trial court found the former wife was under duress or coercion when she signed the agreement and set it aside. The former husband appealed.

The appellate court noted the trial court applied the incorrect standard in considering the former wife’s challenge to the agreement. The former wife relied on Casto v. Casto, 508 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1987) which addresses a post or premarital agreement. The court held “Once an agreement between two or more parties is incorporated into a final judgment, a party seeking relief from the agreement must do so by seeking relief from the judgment, not the agreement. [. . .] Rule 12.540(b) sets forth the bases upon which a party may seek and obtain relief from a judgment. [. . . ] Therefore, this case is not, as the trial court’s order indicates, governed by Casto. [. . .] Thus, it was error for the trial court to analyze Former Wife’s arguments under Casto, as opposed to rule 12.540(b).”

The court further held “Having found rule 12.540(b) controls, the next question is whether the record, as Former Husband argues, clearly demonstrates that each of Former Wife’s arguments for relief are time barred under rule 12.540(b). On this record, we cannot say with certainty that all of Former Wife’s arguments are time barred.” The court noted, for example, that the former wife’s allegation about the fraudulent financial affidavit could be brought at any time under the rule. It further noted that 12.540 allows a judgment to be set aside where “it is no longer equitable that the judgment . . . should have prospective application”, and that such motion must be brought within a reasonable time. The case was remanded for the trial court to consider these arguments and the former husband’s defenses.

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