Premarital agreements were originally made to settle property rights, and in 1983 the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (UPAA) was created to make the rules more consistent across states. Florida hasn’t adopted the UPAA yet, but it looks like they might soon. The Florida version of the UPAA is expected to be presented to the legislature in May 2007. This new act will change Florida case law regarding prenuptial agreements and reflect public policy. A premarital agreement in Florida is a written agreement between people who are planning to get married. It goes into effect when they get married. The agreement can cover things like property, money, and support in case of divorce or death. It can also include things like who gets the life insurance money and where the couple can live. It can’t, however, affect the right to child support. If the couple doesn’t actually get married, the agreement doesn’t take effect. After getting married, a prenup can only be changed or canceled with a written agreement signed by both parties. A new agreement or cancellation doesn’t need anything in return to be enforced. Florida also wants to suggest that a prenup can be given up, but it also needs to be in writing â just acting like the prenup doesn’t exist isn’t enough. Section six of the act talks about when a prenuptial agreement may not be enforced. It says that the agreement won’t be enforced if one person can prove that they didn’t agree to it willingly, or if it was really unfair when it was signed. Unfairness could mean that one person didn’t know enough about the other person’s money and property, or that they didn’t get enough information before signing the agreement. Normally, the person challenging the agreement has to prove that it’s unfair, but this act makes it harder for them to do that. It puts more responsibility on the person who wants to enforce the agreement, to show that it’s not unfair. Overall, the act makes it harder to challenge a prenuptial agreement. Duress is when someone is pressured into doing something against their will because of threats or other unfair influences. For example, if someone threatens to harm your reputation unless you sign a contract, that could be considered duress. In Florida, presenting a prenuptial agreement right before a wedding could be seen as duress, but if it’s presented a little earlier, it might not be. Overreaching is when one person takes advantage of another person in a situation where they don’t have much choice. This can happen in relationships where one person is much more powerful than the other. Unconscionability is when an agreement is so unfair and unreasonable that it’s considered unjust. This often comes up in divorce cases where one person ends up with a lot more than the other. In the case Tenneboe v. Tenneboe, the court decided to cancel a property settlement agreement that was made shortly after a couple filed for divorce. The court found that the husband, who did not have a lawyer, gave the wife everything, including the house, the van, and alimony, while being left with very little money to live on. The court also had concerns about the wife’s lawyer and the information he gave to the husband. In all of these cases, the person challenging the agreement did not have a lawyer. Even though not having a lawyer is usually not enough to cancel an agreement, the court thought the unfair distribution of things, along with other factors, made these agreements unfair. If it’s shown that an agreement was made because one person had more power than the other, it could be considered unfair and canceled. In the case of Baker v. Baker, the court upheld a prenuptial agreement that left the wife with no alimony or share of the husband’s estate. The wife argued that the agreement was unfair and unconscionable, but the court disagreed. They said the wife had legal advice and knew what she was agreeing to. So, even though the agreement seemed unfair, the court said she made a bad deal and had to stick to it. In the case of Baker, if the Uniform Premarital Agreement Act (UPAA) was in effect, the wife would likely have been saved. This is because the UPAA allows the court to require one party to provide support to the other party if a prenup causes one party to be eligible for public assistance. This means that the court could have helped the wife, even if their prenup said otherwise, because it violated Florida public policy. In Florida, prenuptial agreements can be hard to challenge in court. To do so, someone has to prove that the agreement was really unfair at the time it was made, and that the other person didn’t give enough information about their money and property. This is really tough to prove, especially if the couple lived together for a long time before getting married. The law in Florida says that as long as both people knew what they were agreeing to and weren’t forced into it, the agreement is valid, even if it seems unfair. Section seven of the law says that if a marriage is determined to be invalid, an agreement that would have been a prenuptial agreement is still valid. Section eight says that time limits for making claims under the prenuptial agreement are put on hold during the marriage, but either party can still use defenses like laches and estoppel. The law also says that if one part of the prenuptial agreement is invalid, the rest can still be enforced. These rules, combined with the stricter standards in the UPAA, make it less likely that people will try to challenge their prenuptial agreements. This is especially true since the Florida Supreme Court has said that the spouse with less money might have to pay the other spouse’s attorney fees if the agreement is upheld. This shows that contracts, like prenuptial agreements, should be taken seriously. Doreen Inkeles is a certified lawyer who specializes in dealing with issues related to marriage and family.
Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/the-uniform-premarital-agreement-act-taking-casto-to-a-new-level-for-prenuptial-agreements/
Leave a Reply