SANDY QUITTNER, APPELLANT,
v.
ROBERT QUITTNER, 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.
Sandy Quittner appealed an order setting aside a marital settlement agreement's child custody and lump sum alimony provisions. The appellate court reversed, holding that the trial court erred because the record lacked evidence of the materiality and reliance elements necessary to establish fraud.
The court held that the trial court erred in setting aside the settlement agreement because the record did not contain sufficient evidence to establish the elements of materiality and reliance necessary to prove fraud. The boyfriend's name was a de minimis matter that had no effect on the judgment, and Robert could not establish reliance given that he had mistrusted Sandy enough to hire a private detective.
[1] A trial court errs in setting aside a marital settlement agreement incorporated into a final judgment when the record lacks evidence of fraud, specifically failing to est…
[2] A party's knowledge of a romantic relationship and the identity of the partner is not material to child custody or alimony provisions in a settlement agreement if the opp…
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 record does not contain evidence to establish proof of the elements of materiality or reliance necessary to establish fraud”
Establishes the legal standard that both materiality and reliance must be proven to support a fraud claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe Quittners entered into a marital settlement agreement that included child custody and lump sum alimony provisions. Robert Quittner sought to set a…
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 Modification Of Custody cases and more on FLexlaw
[*1169] SHEVIN, Judge.
Sandy Quittner appeals an order setting aside the child custody and lump sum alimony provisions in a marital settlement agreement and incorporated in the final judgment. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.540(b)(3); Fla. Fam. L.R.P. 12.540. We reverse.
The trial court erred in setting aside the settlement agreement as the record does not contain evidence to establish proof of the elements of materiality or reliance necessary to establish fraud. See generally Myers v. Myers, 652 So. 2d 1214, 1215 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995). Contrary to Mr. Quittner’s contention, although Mrs. Quittner’s boyfriend’s worrisome history may cause him concern, the boyfriend’s name, in and of itself, is not material to the child custody or alimony provision. Mr. Quittner had met Mrs. Quitt-ner’s friend during the pendency of the dissolution proceeding, and he was aware of their romantic relationship. As such, the friend’s name is a “de minimis” matter which had no effect on the judgment. See Flemenbaum v. Flemenbaum, 636 So. 2d 579, 580 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994).
Moreover, a review of the record reveals that the parties addressed this relationship during the dissolution proceeding. Before the parties entered into the settlement agreement, Mr. Quittner had engaged the services, albeit unfruitful, of a private detective to investigate Mrs. Quitt-ner’s friend, and the parties’ settlement agreement refers to the possibility of Mrs. Quittner’s marriage to him. Likewise, Mr. Quittner could not establish that he relied on Mrs. Quittner’s representations because he mistrusted her enough to investigate her boyfriend. Also, Mr. Quittner could have conducted discovery to obtain more information regarding his concerns before entering into the settlement agreement. See Poquette v. Poquette, 425 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983).
Accordingly, we hold that the record does not establish sufficient grounds to justify relief from the agreement. See Martinez v. Martinez, 662 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995). As the Flemenbaum court observed, “[i]n many cases, the term ‘fraud’ is loosely used to label all conduct which has displeased an opposing party.” Flemenbaum, 636 So. 2d at 580. We, therefore, reverse the order with directions to reinstate the agreement and judgment. This ruling is without prejudice to Mr. Quittner’s filing a motion for modification of custody, if appropriate.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Flemenbaum v. Lily Flemenbaum, 636 So. 2d 579 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994)
- Myers v. Cardy Mae Myers, 652 So. 2d 1214 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995)
- Betty S. Poquette (Goode) v. Poquette, 425 So. 2d 1203 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Heier v. Heier, 662 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)
- Martinez v. Martinez, 662 So. 2d 1319 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995)