Elias v. Elias, 152 So. 3d 749

Husband and wife signed a prenuptial agreement that required sale of certain jointly owned property if the parties became "legally separated pursuant to judicial proceedings or an agreement" or the marriage was judicially terminated.
Wife filed a petition for dissolution and moved for a determination that the parties became legally separated as of the date she filed the dissolution (or a later date), and for an order identifying assets to be sold under the prenup.
At a hearing the trial court concluded the prenup language was unambiguous and held that the parties became legally separated when service of the dissolution petition was perfected; the court ordered sale of specified assets.
Husband appealed the trial court’s determination of the date of legal separation and the sale order.
The appellate court reviewed de novo whether the prenup language was ambiguous and whether the trial court’s reliance on that language supported its sale order; the court found the clause reasonably susceptible to more than one construction under Florida law and reversed.
Because the trial court did not accept extrinsic evidence (having deemed the clause unambiguous), the appellate court remanded for the trial court to hear evidence on the parties’ intent and construe the clause accordingly.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the prenup clause "legally separated pursuant to judicial proceedings or an agreement" is ambiguous	Wife: clause is plain; service/perfection of the dissolution petition (judicial proceedings) triggered separation	Husband: clause is ambiguous and requires extrinsic evidence about parties' intent; Florida has no cause of action for legal separation	Ambiguous: reasonably susceptible to more than one construction; trial court erred in deeming it unambiguous
Whether the date of legal separation was the date of perfected service	Wife: date of service established judicial proceedings and thus separation	Husband: contested — date requires factual inquiry and extrinsic evidence	Not decided on merits; trial court’s date determination reversed because based on erroneous legal conclusion of unambiguity
Whether the trial court properly ordered sale of assets under the prenup	Wife: sale provision was triggered once parties were legally separated under court’s construction	Husband: sale order premature absent a correct construction and factual finding of separation	Reversed: sale order vacated and remanded so court may receive evidence and interpret clause
Standard of review for contract interpretation	Wife: N/A	Husband: N/A	Court: de novo review; ambiguity requires submission of extrinsic evidence and factual resolution

Taylor v. Taylor, 1 So.3d 348 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (premarital agreements governed by contract law; interpretation reviewed de novo)
Essex Ins. Co. v. Simpler, 911 So.2d 794 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004) (determination of contract ambiguity reviewed de novo)
State, Dep’t of Transp. v. Fla. Gas Transmission Co., 126 So.3d 1095 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (contract provision is ambiguous if reasonably susceptible to more than one construction)
Segal v. Rhumbline Int'l Inc., 688 So.2d 397 (Fla. 4th DCA 1997) (definition of ambiguity in contract interpretation)
Fecteau v. Southeast Bank, N.A., 585 So.2d 1005 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) (when contract ambiguous, parties’ differing interpretations make intent a factual issue requiring extrinsic evidence)
Bacardi v. Bacardi, 386 So.2d 1201 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980) (extrinsic evidence may be needed to ascertain parties’ intent under an ambiguous contract)
Lester v. City of St. Petersburg, 190 So.2d 307 (Fla. 1966) (procedural authority cited regarding reconsideration of dismissal)
Am. Bridge v. Kromis, 555 So.2d 1285 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989) (procedural authority cited regarding reconsideration)
Hampton v. A. Duda & Sons, Inc., 511 So.2d 1104 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987) (procedural authority cited regarding reconsideration)