JHACKELIN MARTINEZ
v.
CARLOS I. BUSTAMANTE
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.
The Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a trial court's decision to disregard a provision in a premarital agreement that granted both spouses the right to occupy the marital domicile upon divorce. The court found the provision patently ambiguous and unenforceable.
The court held that the provision was patently ambiguous because it granted both parties the same right to occupy the same property, which is insensible and defective. The court further held that parol evidence cannot be used to cure a patent ambiguity in a contract.
[1] A patent ambiguity in a contract, readily discernible on the face of the instrument as defective, obscure, or insensible, cannot generally be resolved by examining extrin…
[2] A contract provision that purports to grant both parties the same right to occupy the same property is patently ambiguous.
Previewing 2 of 4 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 language here is readily discernible as defective-it purports to give both parties the same right to occupy the same property. The language is also insensible.”
Establishes the court's finding of patent ambiguity in the premarital agreement provision.
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 entered into a premarital agreement that included a provision stating the "marital domicile shall be occupied by Wife until her death or o…
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 Patent Ambiguity cases and more on FLexlaw
BOKOR, J. Jhackelin Martinez and Carlos I. Bustamante entered into a premarital agreement shortly before their wedding in October 2020. Martinez filed for divorce in 2022. The parties entered a stipulated partial final judgment of dissolution of marriage in late 2024. But this partial final judgment left unresolved a provision in the premarital agreement which explains that, in the event of divorce, “[t]he marital domicile shall be occupied by Wife until her death or occupied by Husband until his death.” The court took parol evidence and ultimately declined to give the disputed provision any effect in the supplemental final judgment, finding that the provision was “ambiguous, and clearly was a mistake.” Martinez appeals, arguing that the parol evidence establishes the parties' intention to give her a life estate in the marital domicile. For the reasons below, we affirm the supplemental final judgment.
A court generally can't resolve a “patent ambiguity” in contractual language by examining extrinsic evidence. Contragolpe LLC v. 505 NE 30 St., LLC, 403 So. 3d 358, 361 (Fla. 3d DCA 2025).1 A patent ambiguity is
A cause of action for reformation must allege that, as a result of a mutual mistake or a unilateral mistake by one party coupled with the inequitable conduct of the other party, the contract fails to express the agreement of the parties. A mistake is mutual when the parties agree to one thing and then, due to either a scrivener's error or inadvertence, express something different in the written instrument.
White v. Fort Myers Beach Fire Control Dist., 302 So. 3d 1064, 1073 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020) (citation modified). Despite erroneously reviewing parol evidence, the trial court reached the correct conclusion.3 After carefully reading the contract as a whole and applying the canons of construction, we are unable to discern the relevant language's meaning without rewriting the contract and inserting terms not present. The term therefore cannot be enforced. See Bowein v. Sherman, 374 So. 3d 895, 897 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023) (declining to enforce contract where patent ambiguity exists in a material term and reaffirming principle that parol evidence cannot be taken to cure such an ambiguity); see also Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Mercury Ins. Co. of Fla., 97 So. 3d 204, 212 (Fla. 2012) (“[A]n appellate court should affirm a trial court that reaches the right result, but for the wrong reasons . . . ." (internal quotation omitted)).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Jhackelin Martinez v. Bustamante, 432 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)
-
City of Lake Worth v. Viera (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
-
Viera v. City of Lake Worth (Fla. 4th DCA 2026)
Authorities Cited
- Dade Cnty. Sch. Bd. v. Radio Station Wqba, 731 So. 2d 638 (Fla. 1999)
- Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Mercury Ins. Co. OF Fla., 97 So. 3d 204 (Fla. 2012)
- Fi-Evergreen Woods, LLC v. Robinson, 135 So. 3d 331 (Fla. 5th DCA 2013)
- White v. Fort Myers Beach Fire Control Dist., 302 So. 3d 1064 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020)
- Ruiz v. Policlinica Metropolitana, 260 So. 3d 1081 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
- Bone & Joint Treatment Ctrs. OF Am. v. Healthtronics Surgical Servs., Inc., 114 So. 3d 363 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)
- Bowein v. Sherman, 374 So. 3d 895 (Fla. 6th DCA 2023)
- Jhackelin Martinez v. Bustamante, 432 So. 3d 76 (Fla. 3d DCA 2026)