SHARON ELIZABETH KERNS, APPELLANT,
v.
WILBUR HARLAN KERNS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Sharon Kerns appealed the dismissal of her petition to set aside a property settlement agreement from her divorce. The court reversed, holding that her allegations of facial unreasonableness were sufficient to require the trial court to determine whether the agreement was unreasonable on its face before dismissing the case.
The court held that although inartfully drawn, Kerns's allegations were sufficient to raise the issue of facial unreasonableness of the agreement. When facial unreasonableness is alleged, the trial court is obliged to determine that issue before proceeding to the merits, because such a finding triggers a presumption of concealment and shifts the burden of proof to the proponent of the agreement.
[1] A party seeking to set aside a property settlement agreement bears the burden of proving fraud, coercion, duress, or concealment.
[2] A property settlement agreement is presumed to be valid and binding when the party seeking to set it aside fails to establish fraud, coercion, duress, or concealment.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“the party seeking to set aside a property settlement agreement has the burden of establishing fraud, coercion, duress or concealment”
Establishes the general rule for who bears the burden of proof in property settlement agreement disputes.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSharon Kerns entered into a property settlement agreement with her husband, Wilbur Harlan Kerns, as part of their divorce. The trial court dismissed h…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Presumption Of Concealment cases and more on FLexlaw
HERSEY, Judge.
Sharon Kerns appeals the dismissal with prejudice of her petition to set aside a property settlement agreement. The order of dismissal, entered upon motion of appellee, husband, after presentation of appellant’s case, contained the following findings:
[T]he evidence presented by the Wife failed to show any fraud, coercion or duress by the Husband against the Wife in conjunction with the Property Settlement Agreement and that the evidence showed that the Wife freely and voluntarily entered into the agreement with knowledge of the financial situation of the Husband.
It. is black letter law that the party seeking to set aside a property settlement agreement has the burden of establishing fraud, coercion, duress or concealment. Baker v. Baker, 394 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). In the absence of such a showing, the agreement, as any other contract, is “... valid and binding on the parties and should be respected by the courts.” Zakoor v. Zakoor, 240 So. 2d 193, 197 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970).
It has become equally well established, however, that if such an agreement is unreasonable on its face then a presumption of concealment arises and the burden shifts to the proponent of the agreement to prove its validity. Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, 143 So. 2d 17 (Fla.1962); Baker v. Baker, supra. Where facial unreasonableness is alleged, the trial court is obliged to treat and dispose of that issue before proceeding to the merits in order to allocate the burden of proof to the appropriate party. Fleming v. Fleming, 408 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). We are unable to find any indication in the record that such a determination was made here.
Thus we are confronted with the issue of whether or not the allegations of appellant’s petition were sufficient to put the trial court on notice of a claim of facial unreasonableness of the agreement. We determine that the allegations, although inartfully drawn, were sufficient to raise that issue.
The petition alleges, inter alia:
3. That the grossly disproportionate benefit to the Husband in the Agreement as incorporated by the Final Judgment, together with sufficient course of circumstances as hereinbefore mentioned exhibit a situation in which the Wife was not able to comprehend the situation that she was involved in.
4. The Property Settlement Agreement as incorporated in this Court’s Final Judgment of Dissolution of Marriage was inequitable to the former wife and furthermore is to the detriment of the parties minor children.
5. The Property Settlement Agreement entered into by the former wife is a totally [sic] unfair, overreaching, unequal distribution of property.
We therefore reverse and remand for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LETTS, C. J., and ANSTEAD, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Petracca v. Luca R. Petracca, 706 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998)…nity of having her chosen lawyer speak for her. Nevertheless, the opinion squarely stands for the proposition that even a litigation settlement is subject to a fairness analysis by a judge when a proper application has been made. In Kerns v. Kerns, 409 So. 2d 137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982), we also reversed'an order denying a petition to set aside a property settlement agreement and remanded for an evi-dentiary hearing. ' Our opinion does- not make clear the context in which the agreement ,was concluded. We do not…
Authorities Cited
- del Vecchio v. del Vecchio, 143 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1962)
- Baker v. Baker, 394 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Zakoor v. Zakoor, 240 So. 2d 193 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- Fleming v. Fleming, 408 So. 2d 238 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)