197 So. 3d 143
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2016Background
- William Richardson (appellant) and Yvette Richardson/Knight (appellee) had a final dissolution hearing where attorneys read a marriage settlement agreement (MSA) into the record.
- Appellee’s attorney confirmed the MSA as read; the trial court incorporated those terms into the final judgment and attached the hearing transcript as the MSA.
- Neither party reduced the MSA to a written, signed agreement nor did the parties give sworn testimony at the hearing confirming their assent or that they discussed the MSA with counsel.
- Appellant obtained new counsel and filed a combined motion for new trial/rehearing/alternatively to amend the judgment; the trial court denied the motion.
- The Fourth District reversed because the record lacked the parties’ on-the-record, sworn assent and, absent a valid MSA, the court’s equitable distribution required statutory factual findings under section 61.075(3).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an oral MSA read into the record by counsel is enforceable without the parties’ on-the-record assent or sworn testimony | Richardson argued the court properly accepted the MSA as incorporated because it was read into the record and appellee’s counsel confirmed it | Knight relied on the incorporated transcript and the trial court’s judgment language stating the court had taken sworn testimony | Court held oral recitation by counsel alone was insufficient; the judge must elicit clear, on-the-record assent from each party (and confirm they discussed terms with counsel) for an enforceable oral MSA |
| Whether the final judgment’s equitable distribution is sufficient without statutory findings when no valid MSA exists | Richardson contended the distribution reflected the parties’ agreement as incorporated | Knight argued the court’s incorporation of the transcript made a separate findings analysis unnecessary | Court held that because no valid MSA was entered, the trial court must make the written factual findings required by §61.075(3) supporting equitable distribution |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonagura v. Home Depot, 991 So.2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) (agreement validity is reviewed de novo)
- Barone v. Rogers, 930 So.2d 761 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) (oral agreements announced in open court are generally enforceable)
- Cohen v. Cohen, 629 So.2d 909 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993) (approving oral MSAs announced in court)
- Chovan v. Chovan, 90 So.3d 898 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) (oral agreement enforceable where parties expressly affirmed understanding and assent on the record)
- Roskind v. Roskind, 552 So.2d 1155 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) (oral stipulation effective when judge elicits party’s clear understanding and voluntary agreement)
- Loss v. Loss, 608 So.2d 39 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992) (trial court must obtain express consent to all terms on the record)
- Marshall-Beasley v. Beasley, 77 So.3d 751 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (when no stipulation is entered, trial court must formulate equitable distribution consistent with §61.075)
- Viera v. Viera, 698 So.2d 1308 (Fla. 5th DCA 1997) (§61.075(3) findings are not required where parties have an executed agreement)