ABIGAIL ROMAINE
v.
CHRISTOPHER D. ROMAINE
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.
Abigail Romaine appeals a final judgment dissolving her marriage, arguing that the trial court erroneously enforced a settlement agreement. The Fifth District Court of Appeal reverses, finding that the wife's handwritten alterations to the husband's proposed settlement constituted a counteroffer rather than an acceptance, and since the husband never accepted the counteroffer, no binding contract was formed.
The wife's handwritten alterations changed essential terms of the settlement agreement and therefore constituted a rejection and counteroffer rather than an acceptance. Because the husband never accepted the counteroffer, no binding contract was formed and the trial court erred in enforcing the settlement agreement.
[1] A marital settlement agreement is governed by the law of contracts, requiring mutual assent and a meeting of the minds.
[2] A valid contract is formed by an offer and an acceptance supported by valid consideration.
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“Like any contract, a settlement agreement is formed when there is mutual assent and a 'meeting of the minds' between the parties—a condition that requires an offer and an acceptance supported by valid consideration.”
Establishes the fundamental contract law principle governing marital settlement agreements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe parties married in 1998 and had three children. After the wife initiated divorce proceedings in April 2016, the case became contentious with four …
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 Mirror Image Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
WALLIS, J.
Abigail Romaine (Former Wife) appeals the final judgment dissolving her marriage to Christopher D. Romaine (Former Husband), arguing that the trial court erroneously incorporated a settlement agreement into the final judgment. We find that Former Wife's response to Former Husband's proposal constituted a rejection and a counteroffer, which Former Husband never accepted. As a result, we find that the parties did not enter into a binding contract. Therefore, we agree with Former Wife and reverse.
The parties married on October 31, 1998, and had three children together. Former Wife initiated divorce proceedings in April 2016. The case became contentious resulting in extensive discovery, court orders highlighting the need for the parties to exhibit proper respect and civility, and four failed mediations. Eventually, and in lieu of Former Wife sitting for her deposition, the parties negotiated the terms of a possible settlement agreement. Former Husband sent Former Wife an email stating the negotiated terms.
Former Husband signed each page of the proposal and attached a spreadsheet distributing the parties' assets and liabilities. After consulting with her attorney and adding five handwritten statements, altering essential terms of the proposal, Former Wife signed the agreement.
When Former Wife attempted to obtain mandatory disclosure from Former Husband, Former Husband moved to enforce the settlement agreement and to stay further proceedings. The trial court granted Former Husband's request and found that the settlement agreement was enforceable because Former Wife's additional handwritten terms did not change the original terms. The trial court subsequently entered the final judgment, which incorporated and ratified the marital settlement agreement by reference, except for the handwritten notations.
A marital settlement agreement is subject to the law of contracts. See Knowling v. Manavoglu, 73 So. 3d 301, 303 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011). "Like any contract, a settlement agreement is formed when there is mutual assent and a 'meeting of the minds' between the parties—a condition that requires an offer and an acceptance supported by valid 2 consideration." Pena v. Fox, 198 So. 3d 61, 63 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015). It is well-established that an acceptance must be a "mirror image" of the offer in all material respects. Trout v. Apicella, 78 So. 3d 681, 684 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012). If the offeree's acceptance does not mirror the offeror's proposal as to all essential terms, it is a counteroffer that rejects the original offer. Breger v. Robshaw Custom Homes, Inc., 264 So. 3d 1147, 1150 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019).
We find that Former Wife's handwritten alterations to the marital settlement agreement changed the essential terms of Former Husband's proposal, particularly as to child support and alimony. Therefore, Former Wife's response was not an acceptance but rather a counteroffer that Former Husband never accepted. Consequently, there was no meeting of the minds to form a binding contract, and the trial court erred when it found otherwise. Accordingly, we reverse the final judgment and remand for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED for Further Proceedings.
EVANDER, C.J. and COHEN, J., concur. 3
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Pena v. FOX, 198 So. 3d 61 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
- Trout v. Apicella, 78 So. 3d 681 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012)
- Knowling v. Emel Manavoglu and Tarkan Manavoglu, 73 So. 3d 301 (Fla. 5th DCA 2011)
- Allyson M. Breger v. Robshaw Custom Homes, Inc., 264 So. 3d 1147 (Fla. 5th DCA 2019)