KAARLO EINAIRI ANTTILA, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
RAIJA MARJA SINIKKA, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT
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.
In this dissolution of marriage case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision to set aside a 1977 antenuptial agreement, affirmed the equitable distribution of marital assets, and affirmed the award of permanent periodic alimony to the former wife in a fourteen-year marriage.
The court affirmed the trial court's invalidation of the antenuptial agreement, finding the former husband's failure to disclose his finances was material despite the wife's claim of approximate knowledge. The court also affirmed the determination of marital assets and their equitable distribution, finding no impermissibly disparate division.
[1] A trial court's findings of fact regarding the validity of an antenuptial agreement, including whether a party had approximate knowledge of the other's finances, will not…
[2] A failure to make financial disclosure prior to obtaining a signature on an antenuptial agreement can render the agreement invalid, even if the other party had approximat…
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“In that reasonable persons could disagree as to the propriety of the scheme of equitable distribution, Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So.2d 1197 (Fla.1980), we find no error either in the determination of what constitutes marital assets, nor in the division of those assets.”
Establishes the standard of review for equitable distribution decisions and the deference given to trial court discretion
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 were married for fourteen years. A 1977 antenuptial agreement was executed in the former husband's lawyer's office. The former husband fai…
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 Financial Disclosure cases and more on FLexlaw
POLEN, Judge.
Former husband appeals a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which set aside a antenuptial agreement, made an equitable distribution of the marital assets and awarded the wife permanent periodic alimony in this fourteen-year marriage. The former husband challenges the trial court’s holding that the antenuptial agreement was invalid, the determination of what constituted marital assets and the division of those assets. The former wife cross appeals the equitable distribution award.
Neither appellant nor appellee have demonstrated reversible error as to the issues raised. In that reasonable persons could disagree as to the propriety of the scheme of equitable distribution, Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla.1980), we find no error either in the determination of what constitutes marital assets, nor in the division of those assets. Further, our view of the record supports the determination that the trial court did not make an imper-missibly disparate division, in accord with our holdings in Bobb v. Bobb, 552 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA1989); Longo v. Longo, 533 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA1988); and Carr v. Carr, 569 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA1990).
The primary issue raised by appellant concerns the trial court’s finding that the parties’ 1977 antenuptial agreement was invalid. While it was undisputed that the former husband failed to make any financial disclosure to the wife prior to obtaining her signature in his lawyer’s office, appellant argues that the wife was not prejudiced because she had “approximate knowledge” of his finances. Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, 143 So. 2d 17 (Fla.1962); Cladis v. Cladis, 512 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA1987). However, the trial court had a full opportunity to consider this argument and the testimony relating to it, and made a specific finding of fact rejecting appellant’s claim of “approximate knowledge.” The record supports the trial court’s determination that the antenuptial agreement was invalid. Such findings by the trier of fact will not be disturbed on appeal.
We affirm as to all issues raised by the appeal and cross appeal.
STONE, J., and ROSS, DALE, Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So. 2d 1197 (Fla. 1980)
- del Vecchio v. del Vecchio, 143 So. 2d 17 (Fla. 1962)
- Bobb v. Bobb, 552 So. 2d 334 (Fla. 4th DCA 1989)
- Longo v. Longo, 533 So. 2d 791 (Fla. 4th DCA 1988)
- Carr v. Carr, 569 So. 2d 903 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Cladis v. Cladis, 512 So. 2d 271 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987)