279 So.3d 736
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2019Background
- Parties executed a prenuptial agreement two weeks before marrying in 2006; it set a schedule of lump-sum alimony tied to the number of full years married "at the time a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage is filed."
- Wife filed an unserved dissolution petition on March 25, 2013 (would yield 7 years → $2.7M) and voluntarily dismissed it the same year.
- Wife filed a second petition on May 26, 2016 (would yield 10 years → $4.2M); litigation on that petition remained pending.
- Husband sued for declaratory relief to interpret which petition’s filing date controls measurement under section 5.3.a. of the prenup.
- Trial court ruled the measure is the filing date of the petition that ultimately results in a dissolution (i.e., the 2016 petition) and entered a declaratory judgment accordingly.
- On appeal, the district court reversed that part of the judgment, holding the plain language "at the time a Petition for Dissolution of Marriage is filed" refers to the first filing of "a petition," so the 2013 filing controls the amount.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Husband) | Defendant's Argument (Wife) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which petition filing date measures the years for lump-sum alimony under §5.3.a? | "A" means "any" → the first petition filed (2013) should lock in the lower amount. | The operative date is the filing that results in an actual dissolution → the 2016 petition controls and yields a larger amount. | Court held the plain meaning ties the amount to the first filing of "a Petition"; 2013 controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 174 So. 3d 983 (Fla. 2015) (prenuptial agreements governed by contract law)
- Heiny v. Heiny, 113 So. 3d 897 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (interpret contract by plain language to discern intent)
- Retreat at Port of Islands, LLC v. Port of Islands Resort Hotel Condo. Ass'n, 181 So. 3d 531 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015) (read provisions in context; give effect to all terms)
- Morrison v. Morrison, 247 So. 3d 604 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018) (latent ambiguity allows parol evidence)
- Interline Brands, Inc. v. Chartis Specialty Ins. Co., 749 F.3d 962 (11th Cir. 2014) (avoid contract interpretation that produces absurd results)
- Intervest Constr. of Jax, Inc. v. Gen. Fid. Ins. Co., 133 So. 3d 494 (Fla. 2014) (courts may not rewrite contracts or add terms)
- In re Guardianship of Sapp, 868 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (give words their natural and commonly understood meaning)
- Taurus Holdings, Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 913 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 2005) (courts cannot add meaning contrary to parties’ intent)