Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 133 So. 3d 1008

In a dissolution action, the wife appeals an amended final judgment challenging the prenuptial agreement's validity, its interpretation, the child support award, and discovery limits; the husband cross-appeals on validity issues, but those are treated as arguments to uphold the prenup.
The trial court upheld the antenuptial agreement's validity; the court considered Florida’s equitable distribution framework under section 61.075 and whether enhanced value of assets was affected by the prenup.
Key prenup provisions include broad waivers of property rights, a title-presumption scheme for assets, and a mutual release of claims to each other’s property and earnings.
The court conducted a de novo interpretation of the prenup as a contract governed by Florida law, focusing on the plain language and the parties’ intentions at execution.
The court held the prenup valid but, on interpretation, found the wife could not claim assets titled in the husband’s name or enhanced by marital efforts, while holding the alimony modification issue requires reversal.
The court certified conflict with Irwin v. Irwin and Valdes v. Valdes and certified a question of great public importance regarding waivers in prenuptial agreements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of antenuptial agreement	Wife argues invalid due to fraud or unfairness.	Husband argues valid due to disclosure and fairness.	Upheld validity; no fraud or unfairness established.
Waiver of assets titled in husband's name and enhanced value	Wife contends waiver does not cover enhanced value from marital efforts.	Husband contends waiver broad enough to preclude claims.	Waiver read broadly; prohibits claims to assets titled in husband's name and their appreciation.
Modification of alimony under prenup	Prenup bars modification of alimony.	Alimony modification may be allowed under changedd circumstances.	Trial court erred; waiver did not clearly preclude modification of alimony.
Other aspects (child support, discovery) follow trial court discretion	Challenged adjustments on child support and discovery scope.	No error in those rulings.	No abuse of discretion found on child support or discovery.
Conflict and public-importance question	Wife seeks alignment with other districts' approaches; seeks certified question.	Husband favors consistent interpretation.	Conflict certified with Irwin and Valdes; question certified as of great public importance.

Casto v. Casto, 508 So.2d 330 (Fla. 1987) (two grounds to attack antenuptial agreements)
Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, 143 So.2d 17 (Fla.1962) (fairness measured at time of execution; concealment not disclosure absence)
Weymouth v. Weymouth, 87 So.3d 30 (Fla.4th DCA 2012) (waiver of enhanced value not addressed where agreement silent on enhancement)
Valdes v. Valdes, 894 So.2d 264 (Fla.3d DCA 2004) (enhanced value of non-marital property subject to distribution if not addressed by agreement)
Irwin v. Irwin, 857 So.2d 247 (Fla.2d DCA 2003) (earnings not specifically reserved may be marital assets)
Timble v. Timble, 616 So.2d 1188 (Fla.4th DCA 1993) (active vs passive appreciation in evaluating marital asset status)
Cameron v. Cameron, 591 So.2d 275 (Fla.5th DCA 1991) (waiver of future appreciation may shield assets, depending on language)
Witowski v. Witowski, 758 So.2d 1181 (Fla.2d DCA 2000) (distinguishes Cameron/Timble when agreement addresses future acquisition)
Posner v. Posner, 233 So.2d 381 (Fla.1969) (antenuptial alimony settlements subject to modification)
Shaw v. Shaw, 448 So.2d 631 (Fla.4th DCA 1984) (true property settlement vs alimony component)
Tapp v. Tapp, 887 So.2d 442 (Fla.2d DCA 2004) (clear waiver language supports waiver of modification rights)