USA – FLORIDA Law and Practice Contributed by: Elisha D. Roy, Sasser, Cestero & Roy
• a general and approximate knowledge by the challenging spouse of the character and extent of the marital property sufficient to obtain a value by reasonable means, as well as a general knowledge of the income of the parties. Casto, 508 So. 2d at 333. Prenuptial Agreements, Entered After 1 October 2007 Agreements entered after 1 October 2007, referred to as premarital agreements, are gov - erned by the UPAA. Premarital agreements must be in writing and signed by both parties. Pursuant to Florida Statutes § 61.079, a pre - marital agreement is not enforceable if the party against whom enforcement is sought proves that: • the party did not execute the agreement voluntarily; • the agreement was the product of fraud, duress, coercion or overreaching; or • the agreement was unconscionable when it was executed and, before execution of the agreement, that party: (a) was not provided a fair and reasonable disclosure of the property or financial obli - gations of the other party; (b) did not voluntarily and expressly waive, in writing, any right to disclosure of the property or financial obligations of the other party beyond the disclosure pro - vided; and (c) did not have, or reasonably could not have had, an adequate knowledge of the property or financial obligations of the other party.
Premarital and postnuptial agreements may contract regarding property rights, disposition for property, spousal support, rights in and dis - position of death benefits from a life insurance policy, choice of law governing the agreement and any other personal rights not in violation of public policy or a law imposing a criminal pen - alty. Premarital and postnuptial agreements may not contract with respect to children’s issues or tem - porary support. Pre and Postnuptial Agreements Regardless of Entry Date All pre and postnuptial agreements are inter - preted and construed like any other contract. See Famiglio v Famiglio, 279 So. 3d 736 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (asserting same in the context of a prenuptial agreement); Chipman v Chipman, 975 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) (asserting same in the context of a postnuptial agreement). It is important to understand that, when inter - preting any agreement, the court must first look to its plain language to determine the parties’ intent. Famiglio, at 739. When interpreting the agreement, the court may only consider extrin - sic evidence outside of the agreement’s plain language, known as parol evidence, when the agreement contains an ambiguity. Id. Florida law staunchly supports parties’ rights to contract. It is never the role of a trial court to rewrite a contract to make it more reasonable for one of the parties. Id. Famiglio is a key case explaining, in immense detail, the process trial courts must employ when interpreting and construing marital agree - ments.
374 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook