Macar v. Macar
26 Fla. L. Weekly Supp. 799, 2001 Fla. LEXIS 2282, 803 So.2d 707 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Challenges to marital settlement agreements reached after the commencement of litigation and the opportunity for discovery are governed by the narrow standards of Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, not the broader fairness and disclosure standards established in Casto v. Casto.
Facts:
- Alex and Vivian Macar were married in 1986.
- On November 18, 1996, Vivian Macar filed a petition for dissolution of marriage.
- For approximately eleven months, both parties were represented by counsel and engaged in extensive discovery, including filing financial affidavits and making mandatory disclosures.
- Vivian Macar hired an accountant to inventory the couple's assets based on the discovery documents provided.
- On the morning of the trial, October 17, 1997, the parties announced they had reached a settlement agreement on all issues.
- In open court, both parties affirmed that they understood the terms and had entered into the agreement voluntarily.
- Sometime after the settlement was incorporated into the final judgment, Vivian Macar alleged that Alex Macar had failed to disclose certain assets and had misclassified and undervalued three brokerage accounts during the discovery process.
Procedural Posture:
- Vivian Macar filed a petition for dissolution of marriage against Alex Macar in a Florida trial court.
- The trial court entered a final judgment of dissolution which incorporated the parties' settlement agreement.
- Vivian Macar later filed a motion for relief from judgment in the same trial court.
- The trial court, applying the standard from Casto v. Casto, found the agreement unfair, granted the motion, and set aside the property settlement.
- Alex Macar, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal; Vivian Macar was the appellee.
- The Second District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court, holding that Rule 1.540 was the correct standard, and reinstated the original judgment.
- The Second District Court of Appeal certified a conflict with another district's decision to the Supreme Court of Florida.
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 the standard from Casto v. Casto, which allows a postnuptial agreement to be set aside for being unfair or unreasonable coupled with a lack of financial disclosure, apply to a marital settlement agreement reached after a dissolution action has been filed and the parties have engaged in discovery?
Opinions:
Majority - Lewis, J.
No. The standard from Casto v. Casto does not apply. Challenges to marital settlement agreements reached after the commencement of litigation and utilization of discovery are governed by Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. The court reasoned that the Casto standard applies to agreements made when spouses are in a fiduciary relationship of trust, typically before litigation begins. Once an action is filed and parties become adversaries, they deal at arm's length and have access to discovery tools to compel full financial disclosure. To allow a party who had the opportunity for extensive discovery to later challenge an agreement based on a lack of knowledge or general unfairness would undermine the finality of judgments and waste judicial resources. Rule 1.540 provides a stricter, but appropriate, standard for relief based on grounds such as fraud or newly discovered evidence that could not have been found through due diligence.
Concurring - Pariente, J.
No. The Casto test does not apply under the specific circumstances of this case, but the court's holding should be limited. The concurrence agrees with the result because the parties here had engaged in extensive discovery and were represented by counsel. However, the author expressed concern about creating a broad rule that would apply where a settlement, such as in mediation, is reached early in the litigation process before discovery is complete. In such cases, a party may not have had a full opportunity to learn of the other's finances, making the principles of full disclosure underlying Casto more relevant. The majority's reliance on cases involving pre-judgment challenges was also distinguished as factually dissimilar.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a critical dividing line for challenging marital settlement agreements in Florida, hinging on the procedural posture of the case. By restricting the broad, fairness-based Casto standard to pre-litigation agreements, the Court significantly enhances the finality of settlements reached during contested divorce proceedings. The ruling places a heavy burden on parties and their counsel to conduct thorough due diligence using discovery tools. Consequently, it becomes much more difficult for a party to rescind a post-litigation settlement by claiming 'unfairness' or 'lack of knowledge,' requiring them instead to meet the higher bar of proving fraud or other misconduct under Rule 1.540.
Unlock the full brief for Macar v. Macar