Florida Case Involves Contested Prenuptial Agreement

Generally speaking, prenuptial agreements can be seen as an emotional insurance policy. They’re usually signed with optimism for the future. On the other hand, they can be used to protect your interests should things fall apart. In Florida, the law gives wide latitude to couples who want to define their financial boundaries before marriage. Yet when a divorce occurs, even decades later, the enforceability of those agreements can decide how millions in assets are allocated. The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch stands as one of the most important rulings on how far a prenuptial agreement can go in limiting property rights after marriage.

Background of the case

The parties married in 1986 after signing a prenuptial agreement. The contract was blunt and broad. Both spouses were expected to explicitly give up “any and all rights and claims of every kind” to one another’s property. The contract went even further. It specified that any asset held in one person’s name (regardless of whether it was acquired before or during the marriage) would remain in that person’s estate.

For many years, the agreement was untouched as the couple built their life together. But after more than 20 years of marriage, the former wife filed for divorce. She challenged the terms of the prenuptial agreement she had earlier accepted. She argued that while she had clearly waived her rights to the former husband’s premarital assets, the agreement didn’t explicitly cover the growth of those assets or the wealth that the former husband built through his efforts during the marriage. Essentially, the former wife claimed that the contract didn’t anticipate the full complexity of her shared marital contributions.

However, the trial court saw no ambiguity in the written document. The court upheld the prenup as it was written. It emphasized the clarity and breadth of the language. The former wife appealed, and the case made it all the way to the Florida Supreme Court. The case raised this question: Can a sweeping waiver like this couple’s prenup truly block a spouse from claiming any part of wealth amassed during a long marriage, even if that wealth grew due to shared efforts?

The appellate court’s decision

In this case, the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether broad waiver language in a prenuptial agreement also covered marital appreciation and property acquired in one spouse’s name during the marriage.

At the time, Florida appellate courts were divided. Some required specific language waiving rights to future earnings or appreciation. Others held that general waiver language was enough. The justices thus accepted Hahamovitch to resolve a statewide conflict.

In this case, the Supreme Court sided with the husband, ruling that when a prenup clearly states that each spouse will keep any property titled in their own name, that language is sufficient to waive any claims to the other’s property.

Talk to a Clearwater, FL, Divorce Lawyer Today

Cairns Law, P.A., represents the interests of Clearwater residents who are about to divorce their spouses. Call our Clearwater family lawyers today to schedule an appointment, and we can begin representing your interests right away.

Source:

law.justia.com/cases/florida/supreme-court/2015/sc14-277.html