Casto v. Casto
508 So. 2d 330 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A postnuptial agreement may be set aside if it was reached through fraud, duress, or overreaching, or if the agreement makes an unfair or unreasonable provision for the challenging spouse who lacked full financial disclosure or adequate knowledge of the other spouse's assets and income.
Facts:
- James D. Casto and Donna L. Casto were married for a second time in 1967.
- During the marriage, James Casto became a successful shopping center developer, accumulating substantial assets, while Donna Casto was a homemaker.
- In 1977, the parties signed a postnuptial agreement providing Donna Casto with their home, $100,000, and other benefits, while both parties waived all rights to alimony or further property distribution.
- Before signing the agreement, Donna Casto prepared a general handwritten list of her husband's assets but had no information on their value, associated debts, or the income they generated.
- James Casto did not provide his wife with a financial statement and threatened that if she did not sign the agreement, he would 'blow up the house and throw Clorox all over her clothes.'
- Donna Casto consulted two attorneys; the first reviewed her list of assets and advised her not to sign, while the second, who was not a domestic relations expert, advised only on the agreement's form.
- Medical experts testified that Donna Casto was deeply depressed in the week leading up to her signing the agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- James D. Casto (husband) filed a dissolution petition in a Florida trial court and requested approval of the postnuptial agreement.
- Donna L. Casto (wife) answered, alleging the agreement's invalidity due to duress, overreaching, and her lack of knowledge of the husband's assets.
- The trial court found the agreement invalid, set it aside, and awarded the wife $1.5 million in lump sum alimony.
- James D. Casto, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
- The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision.
- James D. Casto, as petitioner, sought review from the Supreme Court of Florida, which was granted based on apparent conflict with prior decisions.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
May a court set aside a postnuptial property settlement agreement on the grounds that it is unfair and was executed without the challenging spouse having adequate knowledge of the other spouse's financial circumstances?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Overton
Yes, a court may set aside a postnuptial agreement if it is unfair and the challenging spouse lacked adequate knowledge of the other's finances. The court established two grounds to vacate such an agreement. The first is traditional contract defenses like fraud, deceit, duress, or overreaching. The second ground requires the challenging spouse to first establish that the agreement is unfair or unreasonable given the parties' circumstances. Once unreasonableness is shown, a presumption of concealment or lack of knowledge arises, and the burden shifts to the defending spouse to prove either: (a) there was full and frank financial disclosure, or (b) the challenging spouse had a general and approximate knowledge of the character and extent of the marital property and income. In this case, the agreement was facially unreasonable, giving the wife approximately $225,000 from an estate worth up to $10 million. The wife's knowledge was insufficient, as her list of assets lacked values, mortgage details, or income, so the husband failed to rebut the presumption. The court clarified that while incompetent assistance of counsel is not a basis for vacating an agreement, the husband's oppressive and threatening conduct effectively negated the legal advice the wife received, supporting the finding of involuntariness.
Analysis:
This case solidifies the two-part test for challenging postnuptial agreements in Florida, extending the principles from Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio. It provides a clear framework for courts by establishing that facial unreasonableness of an agreement shifts the burden of proof regarding financial disclosure to the economically superior spouse. Crucially, the court distinguishes between the invalid ground of 'incompetent counsel' and the valid ground of duress or overreaching by one party that negates the effectiveness of any legal advice. This precedent reinforces judicial scrutiny of marital agreements to ensure they are fair or, if not, were entered into with sufficient knowledge and voluntariness.
Unlock the full brief for Casto v. Casto