Posner v. Posner
233 So.2d 381 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An antenuptial agreement regarding alimony is not void ab initio as against public policy. Such agreements are valid if entered into under fair conditions but remain subject to modification by a court upon a showing of changed circumstances.
Facts:
- Before their marriage, Victor Posner and Sari Posner entered into an antenuptial agreement.
- The agreement contained a provision stipulating that in the event of a divorce, Sari Posner would receive $600 per month in alimony.
- The agreement also settled the property rights each spouse would have in the other's estate upon death.
- After signing the agreement, the parties married.
- During their marriage, they had two minor children.
- The marriage subsequently broke down, leading the parties to seek a divorce.
Procedural Posture:
- Victor Posner and Sari Posner were parties to a divorce suit in a Florida trial court (referred to as the 'Chancellor').
- The trial court entered a final decree granting a divorce to Victor Posner and ordering him to pay Sari Posner alimony of $600 per month, in accordance with their antenuptial agreement.
- Sari Posner, as appellant, appealed the alimony award and the granting of the divorce to her husband to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal.
- Victor Posner, as appellee, filed a cross-appeal challenging the trial court's child support award.
- The District Court of Appeal affirmed the divorce and child support but the three-judge panel could not reach a consensus on the validity of the antenuptial alimony provision.
- Due to the legal uncertainty and its public importance, the District Court of Appeal certified the question of the validity and binding effect of such agreements 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:
Is an antenuptial agreement that sets the terms for alimony in the event of divorce void as against public policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Roberts, J.
No, an antenuptial agreement setting terms for alimony in the event of divorce is not void as against public policy. The court overruled the traditional rule, recognizing that with divorce being a commonplace fact of life, public policy has changed. The historical view that such agreements promote divorce is no longer tenable. The court held that such an agreement is valid if it meets the stringent tests for fairness applicable to antenuptial agreements settling property rights upon death, as established in Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, which require either a fair and reasonable provision or full disclosure of assets and a voluntary waiver. However, even if valid when executed, the alimony provisions are subject to modification by a court under Florida Statute § 61.14 if a change in circumstances is demonstrated, thereby balancing the parties' freedom to contract with the state's interest in ensuring adequate spousal support.
Concurring - Spector, J.
No, such an agreement is not void as against public policy. This opinion agrees with the majority's holding that antenuptial agreements providing for alimony are valid if they meet the Del Vecchio test. The concurrence emphasizes that the statutory power to modify the agreed-upon alimony under § 61.14 should only be exercised for the 'strongest and most compelling reasons.' A change in circumstances justifying modification could include the wife's debilitating illness or significant inflation that renders the agreed amount insufficient, potentially making her a public charge. The mere fact that the husband's financial ability has increased is not, by itself, a sufficient basis for modification; the primary inquiry is whether the recipient spouse's needs have changed.
Analysis:
This decision represents a landmark shift in Florida's family law, moving away from the traditional majority view that prenuptial agreements contemplating divorce were void as contrary to public policy. By validating such agreements, the court acknowledged changing social norms and prioritized freedom of contract. However, by explicitly making these agreements modifiable upon a change in circumstances, the court created a hybrid approach. This ruling balances the parties' right to pre-determine their financial affairs with the court's equitable power to ensure fairness and prevent a spouse from becoming destitute due to unforeseen events, setting a precedent that influenced other states to reconsider their own rules.
