When we last discussed prenuptial agreements in this blog, we focused primarily on the creation and enforceability of such agreements, and uncovered that a valid premarital agreement may be unenforceable for a variety of reasons pursuant to Florida Statute 61.079.
So how does this actually play out in real life?
Within this blog, we now seek to illustrate and determine how, and when, such an agreement may be overturned by the court. To attempt to answer such a question, we must pick up from Florida Statute 61.079 and delve further into Florida case law.
In the case of Hahamovitch, the court tells us that, “A trial court’s decision to uphold an antenuptial agreement must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. See Waton v. Waton, 887 So.2d 419, 421–22 (Fla. 4th DCA 2004); Herrera v. Herrera, 895 So.2d 1171, 1175 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005).” Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 133 So. 3d 1008, 1010 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). A party may challenge a prenuptial agreement in one of two ways: (1) the first ground for setting aside an antenuptial agreement is satisfied where a spouse establishes that the agreement was the product of fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, misrepresentation, or overreaching, and (2) the second ground is dependent generally on fairness and focuses on a very fact specific determination as to concepts such as equity and unconscionability. Id.
Equity may be synonymous with the concept of fairness, whereas unconscionability may coincide with the idea that something “shocks the conscience,” and can be either procedurally unconscionable (i.e., where your spouse forced you to sign something quickly, without reading it, five (5) minutes before the marriage), or substantively unconscionable (i.e., which focuses more on the substance of the agreement itself.)
The concepts within the first ground stated above may be a bit more straight forward in terms of general legal principles within the law, however the second ground may be more vague and fact specific.
To explore this idea further, in Hahamovitch, the court states specifically that in order to challenge the antenuptial agreement on the second ground, “[i]nitially, the challenging spouse must establish that the agreement makes an unfair or unreasonable provision for that spouse, given the circumstances of the parties. Id.
When claiming that an agreement is unreasonable, the challenging spouse must present evidence of the parties’ relative situations, including their respective ages, health, education, and financial status. Id.
A trial court may determine that the agreement, on its face, does not adequately provide for the challenging spouse and, consequently, is unreasonable. In making this determination, the trial court must find that the agreement is ‘disproportionate to the means’ of the defending spouse. Id.
This finding requires some evidence in the record to establish a defending spouse’s financial means. Id.
However, the element of fairness should, of course, be measured as of the time of the execution of the agreement.
Once the claiming spouse establishes that the agreement is unreasonable, a presumption arises that there was either concealment by the defending spouse or a presumed lack of knowledge by the challenging spouse of the defending spouse’s finances at the time the agreement was reached.” Casto, 508 So.2d at 333.
The burden then shifts to the defending spouse, who may rebut these presumptions…” Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 133 So. 3d 1008, 1010–11 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). In Hahamovitch, the trial court upheld the prenuptial agreement citing that there was no evidence of fraud or misrepresentation, and because the agreement was fair when it was entered into by the parties. Id.
If you, or someone you know has, or is about to enter into, a prenuptial agreement, and there are concerns regarding the agreements validity, enforceability, and/or whether it could be overturned, contact Men’s Rights Law Firm today at 239-829-0166 to discuss your options and rights.