Marital Legal Separation and Property Settlement Agreement Minor Children Parties May have Joint Property or Debts where Divorce Action Filed
Note: This summary is not intended to be an all-inclusive
discussion of the law of separation agreements in Florida, but does include
basic and other provisions.
General Summary: Separation and Property Agreements
may be entered into before a divorce is filed to be effective when signed,
or may ne entered into after the divorce is filed.
In divorce property division, Florida follows the theory of equitable
distribution. In the absence of an agreement, the court will make
an "equitable" distribution of the property and assets of the marriage
based on the circustances of the parties. A Separation and Property
Agreement that is fair, equitable and grounded in full disclosure by the
parties will be enforced by the court.
Statutes:
Florida Statutes
Title VI Civil Practice and Procedure
Chapter 61 Dissolution Of Marriage; Support; Custody
Equitable distribution of marital assets and liabilities:
(1) In a proceeding for dissolution of marriage,
in addition to all other remedies available to a court to do equity between
the parties, or in a proceeding for disposition of assets following a dissolution
of marriage by a court which lacked jurisdiction over the absent spouse
or lacked jurisdiction to dispose of the assets, the court shall set apart
to each spouse that spouse's nonmarital assets and liabilities, and in
distributing the marital assets and liabilities between the parties, the
court must begin with the premise that the distribution should be equal,
unless there is a justification for an unequal distribution based on all
relevant factors, including:
(a) The contribution to the marriage by each spouse,
including contributions to the care and education of the children and services
as homemaker.
(b) The economic circumstances of the parties.
(c) The duration of the marriage.
(d) Any interruption of personal careers or educational opportunities
of either party.
(e) The contribution of one spouse to the personal career
or educational opportunity of the other spouse.
(f) The desirability of retaining any asset, including an
interest in a business, corporation, or professional practice, intact and
free from any claim or interference by the other party.
(g) The contribution of each spouse to the acquisition, enhancement,
and production of income or the improvement of, or the incurring of liabilities
to, both the marital assets and the nonmarital assets of the parties.
(h) The desirability of retaining the marital home as a residence
for any dependent child of the marriage, or any other party, when it would
be equitable to do so, it is in the best interest of the child or that
party, and it is financially feasible for the parties to maintain the residence
until the child is emancipated or until exclusive possession is otherwise
terminated by a court of competent jurisdiction. In making this determination,
the court shall first determine if it would be in the best interest of
the dependent child to remain in the marital home; and, if not, whether
other equities would be served by giving any other party exclusive use
and possession of the marital home.
(i) The intentional dissipation, waste, depletion, or destruction
of marital assets after the filing of the petition or within 2 years prior
to the filing of the petition.
(j) Any other factors necessary to do equity and justice
between the parties.
(2) If the court awards a cash payment for the purpose of equitable
distribution of marital assets, to be paid in full or in installments,
the full amount ordered shall vest when the judgment is awarded and the
award shall not terminate upon remarriage or death of either party, unless
otherwise agreed to by the parties, but shall be treated as a debt owed
from the obligor or the obligor's estate to the obligee or the obligee's
estate, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties.
(3) In any contested dissolution action wherein a stipulation
and agreement has not been entered and filed, any distribution of marital
assets or marital liabilities shall be supported by factual findings in
the judgment or order based on competent substantial evidence with reference
to the factors enumerated in subsection (1). The distribution of all marital
assets and marital liabilities, whether equal or unequal, shall include
specific written findings of fact as to the following:
(a) Clear identification of nonmarital assets and
ownership interests;
(b) Identification of marital assets, including the individual
valuation of significant assets, and designation of which spouse shall
be entitled to each asset;
(c) Identification of the marital liabilities and designation
of which spouse shall be responsible for each liability;
(d) Any other findings necessary to advise the parties or
the reviewing court of the trial court's rationale for the distribution
of marital assets and allocation of liabilities.
(4) The judgment distributing assets shall have the effect of
a duly executed instrument of conveyance, transfer, release, or acquisition
which is recorded in the county where the property is located when the
judgment, or a certified copy of the judgment, is recorded in the official
records of the county in which the property is located.
(5) As used in this section:
(a) "Marital assets and liabilities" include:
1. Assets acquired and liabilities incurred during
the marriage, individually by either spouse or jointly by them;
2. The enhancement in value and appreciation of nonmarital
assets resulting either from the efforts of either party during the marriage
or from the contribution to or expenditure thereon of marital funds or
other forms of marital assets, or both;
3. Interspousal gifts during the marriage;
4. All vested and nonvested benefits, rights, and funds accrued
during the marriage in retirement, pension, profit-sharing, annuity, deferred
compensation, and insurance plans and programs; and
5. All real property held by the parties as tenants by the
entireties, whether acquired prior to or during the marriage, shall
be presumed to be a marital asset. If, in any case, a party makes a claim
to the contrary, the burden of proof shall be on the party asserting the
claim for a special equity.
(b) "Nonmarital assets and liabilities" include:
1. Assets acquired and liabilities incurred by either
party prior to the marriage, and assets acquired and liabilities incurred
in exchange for such assets and liabilities;
2. Assets acquired separately by either party by noninterspousal
gift, bequest, devise, or descent, and assets acquired in exchange for
such assets;
3. All income derived from nonmarital assets during the marriage
unless the income was treated, used, or relied upon by the parties as a
marital asset; and
4. Assets and liabilities excluded from marital assets and
liabilities by valid written agreement of the parties, and assets acquired
and liabilities incurred in exchange for such assets and liabilities.
(6) The cut-off date for determining assets and liabilities to
be identified or classified as marital assets and liabilities is the earliest
of the date the parties enter into a valid separation agreement, such other
date as may be expressly established by such agreement, or the date of
the filing of a petition for dissolution of marriage. The date for determining
value of assets and the amount of liabilities identified or classified
as marital is the date or dates as the judge determines is just and equitable
under the circumstances. Different assets may be valued as of different
dates, as, in the judge's discretion, the circumstances require.
(7) All assets acquired and liabilities incurred by either
spouse subsequent to the date of the marriage and not specifically established
as nonmarital assets or liabilities are presumed to be marital assets and
liabilities. Such presumption is overcome by a showing that the assets
and liabilities are nonmarital assets and liabilities. The presumption
is only for evidentiary purposes in the dissolution proceeding and does
not vest title. Title to disputed assets shall vest only by the judgment
of a court. This section does not require the joinder of spouses in the
conveyance, transfer, or hypothecation of a spouse's individual property;
affect the laws of descent and distribution; or establish community property
in this state.
(8) The court may provide for equitable distribution of the
marital assets and liabilities without regard to alimony for either party.
After the determination of an equitable distribution of the marital assets
and liabilities, the court shall consider whether a judgment for alimony
shall be made.
(9) To do equity between the parties, the court may, in lieu
of or to supplement, facilitate, or effectuate the equitable division of
marital assets and liabilities, order a monetary payment in a lump sum
or in installments paid over a fixed period of time. Section 61.075.
Case Law:
It is well settled that "[a] pure property settlement agreement
is not subject to modification by the trial court without the consent of
the parties." Kirchen v. Kirchen, 484 So.2d 1308, 1311 (Fla. 2d
DCA 1986). However, a property settlement agreement which also makes
provision for periodic alimony is separable and modifiable insofar as the
support portion of the agreement is concerned. Jantzen v. Cotner,
513 So.2d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987).
The nature of the agreement must be determined by an examination
of the language of the agreement, the surrounding circumstances, and the
parties' apparent purpose when they entered into the agreement. Underwood
v. Underwood, 64 So.2d 281, 288 (Fla.1953). The test for determining
when periodic payments constitute support or a methodology for division
of property, seems to be whether the payor spouse's payments are given
in exchange for a reciprocal exchange of property interests from the recipient
spouse. In other words, the question is whether the recipient spouse bought
and paid for the payments and is therefore entitled to receive them as
written as a matter of contract. See Salomon v. Salomon, 196 So.2d
111 (Fla. 1967).
A party seeking modification of a property settlement agreement
must satisfy the heavy burden of showing that the settlement is the product
of fraud, duress, misrepresentation, or overreaching, or that the
settlement is unfair or unreasonable.
Work v. Provine, 632 So.2d 1119, 1121 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994).
Property settlement agreements are not subject to modification when
the agreements are incorporated into final judgments of dissolution of
marriage, Karch v. Karch, 445 So.2d 1077 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984).
A true property settlement agreement, in which one party gives up
valuable property rights in exchange for the right to receive periodic
payments, is not subject to modification. Hughes v. Hughes, 553
So.2d 197 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
Generally speaking, in the absence of a specific reservation of
jurisdiction to make a later adjudication of property rights, a lower court
does not have jurisdiction to modify property rights after an adjudication
of those rights has been made in a judgment of dissolution. Harman v.
Harman, 523 So.2d 187 (Fla. 2d DCA 1988). Modification of a property
settlement incorporated into a final judgment of dissolution may only be
had if the party seeking modification can satisfy the exceptionally heavy
burden of showing that the settlement is the product of fraud, duress,
deceit, misrepresentation, or overreaching, or that the settlement
is unfair or unreasonable. McMahan v. McMahan, 567 So.2d 976 (Fla.
1st DCA 1990).
Even if a specific reservation of jurisdiction is made, it has been
held that such only affords a court authority to address property rights
not previously settled by the final judgment. Brandt v. Brandt,
525 So.2d 1017 (Fla.4th DCA 1988).
Where the agreement contains a provision by which each of the parties
have explicitly waived the right to seek modification of the alimony payments.
Such a provision removes any basis for the court to ignore their valid
and binding contract. Hughes v. Hughes, 553 So.2d 197 (Fla.
2d DCA 1989).
Unless both spouses have separate counsel at the time of preparation
and execution of the agreement, the marital relationship remains in a non-adversarial
stance, and each party has fiduciary-like responsibility to the other.
Fleming
v. Fleming, 474 So.2d 1247,1249 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985); Baker v. Baker,
394 So.2d at 468.
