Francavilla v. Francavilla
969 So.2d 522, 2007 WL 4142736 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Signing a prenuptial agreement under potentially pressuring circumstances, such as pregnancy and proximity to the wedding, does not constitute duress if the challenging party had adequate financial disclosure, independent legal counsel, and a sufficient period for negotiation.
Facts:
- Kandice K. Francavilla and John Francavilla had a history of a prior marriage and divorce.
- After reuniting years later, Kandice became pregnant within a month.
- John insisted on a prenuptial agreement as a precondition for their second marriage, telling Kandice, "you broke my heart twice but you're not going to take my money."
- The parties negotiated the terms of the agreement for three to four months.
- Kandice retained her own attorney, who drafted the agreement, and she met with the attorney at least twice.
- Two months before the wedding, John provided Kandice with a financial statement and tax returns, disclosing his net worth was between $1.6 and $2.5 million.
- A few days before the wedding, Kandice successfully negotiated favorable changes to the alimony provision.
- While seven months pregnant, Kandice signed the prenuptial agreement less than an hour before the courthouse wedding ceremony.
Procedural Posture:
- Kandice Francavilla and John Francavilla were parties to a dissolution of marriage proceeding in a Florida circuit court, which is a court of first instance.
- During the proceeding, Kandice Francavilla sought to set aside the parties' prenuptial agreement.
- The trial court entered a final judgment that enforced the prenuptial agreement, finding it was not the product of duress and was not unfair.
- Kandice Francavilla, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.
- John Francavilla is the appellee in the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prenuptial agreement signed by a seven-month-pregnant woman less than an hour before the wedding ceremony constitute an agreement executed under duress, thereby rendering it unenforceable?
Opinions:
Majority - Gross, J.
No. A prenuptial agreement is not the product of duress simply because it was signed close to the wedding by a pregnant party, provided the surrounding circumstances show it was a voluntary act. To establish duress, a party must prove their free will was overcome by improper coercive conduct. Here, the court looked at the entire negotiation process, which spanned several months, not just the final moments before signing. The wife had independent legal counsel who drafted the agreement, received full financial disclosure from the husband, and successfully negotiated favorable terms. The husband's ultimatum that he would not marry without the agreement is not considered improper coercion. The court distinguished this case from others involving true time pressure where an agreement is presented for the first time just before a wedding with no opportunity for review or disclosure.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary bar for invalidating a prenuptial agreement on the grounds of duress in Florida. It clarifies that courts will employ a totality of the circumstances approach, focusing on the entire negotiation period rather than isolating the potentially stressful moment of execution. The case establishes that factors like lengthy negotiations, independent legal representation, and adequate financial disclosure are powerful evidence against a claim of duress, even when sympathetic facts like pregnancy and an imminent wedding are present. This precedent makes it more difficult for a party who had the opportunity to protect their interests through counsel to later claim their will was overborne.
