Background
Cesar Ortega appealed from a non-final order entered by the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County in a family law proceeding. The trial court, presided over by Judge Angélica D. Zayas, had upheld the validity or enforcement of an antenuptial (prenuptial) agreement between Ortega and Grisell Verania Sotolongo. Ortega challenged that determination on appeal, seeking reversal of the trial court’s decision to enforce the agreement.
The case originated in the lower tribunal as case number 23-4226-FC-04. Ortega was represented by Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP, along with attorneys Robin Bresky and Jonathan Mann. Sotolongo was represented by Kevin Coyle Colbert. The appeal was heard by a three-judge panel of the Third District Court of Appeal consisting of Judges Fernandez, Gooden, and Rebull.
The Court’s Holding
The Third District Court of Appeal issued a per curiam opinion affirming the trial court’s order. The court provided no independent reasoning or analysis, instead issuing a one-word disposition—”Affirmed”—accompanied by citations to existing Florida case law governing the review and enforcement of prenuptial agreements.
The court cited Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 133 So. 3d 1008, 1010, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), approved, 174 So. 3d 983 (Fla. 2015), for the dual standard of review applicable to prenuptial agreement challenges: a trial court’s decision to uphold an antenuptial agreement must be supported by competent, substantial evidence, while the trial court’s interpretation of the agreement itself is reviewed de novo. The court also cited Crupi v. Crupi, 784 So. 2d 611, 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), which identifies two separate grounds for invalidating prenuptial or postnuptial agreements: first, fraud, duress, coercion, misrepresentation, or overreaching; and second, unfairness.
Additionally, the court referenced Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So. 2d 7, 9 (Fla. 1972), for the proposition that contracts relating to marriage differ fundamentally from ordinary commercial contracts, and cited Hjortaas v. McCabe, 656 So. 2d 168, 170-71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995), and Baker v. Baker, 394 So. 2d 465, 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), regarding the fiduciary responsibilities inherent in marital relationships and the necessity of full financial disclosure when one spouse lacks representation or financial sophistication.
Key Takeaways
- The Third District affirmed the trial court’s enforcement of a prenuptial agreement without providing independent analysis, relying instead on established Florida precedent.
- Florida appellate courts review a trial court’s factual findings supporting enforcement of a prenuptial agreement for competent, substantial evidence, but review the legal interpretation of the agreement de novo.
- Florida law recognizes two distinct grounds for invalidating prenuptial agreements: (1) fraud, duress, coercion, misrepresentation, or overreaching; and (2) unfairness.
- Marital agreements are subject to heightened fiduciary duties compared to ordinary commercial contracts, particularly regarding financial disclosure and the presence or absence of independent counsel.
Why It Matters
This per curiam affirmance reinforces the established framework for challenging prenuptial agreements in Florida. By citing Hahamovitch, Crupi, and related cases without elaboration, the court signaled that the trial court’s application of these well-settled principles was correct and required no further exposition. The decision underscores the difficulty of overturning prenuptial agreements on appeal when the trial court has properly applied the competent substantial evidence standard to factual findings and correctly interpreted the agreement’s terms.
For practitioners, the case serves as a reminder that Florida appellate courts will not disturb trial court rulings on prenuptial agreements absent a clear showing of error under the applicable standards. The citation to Hjortaas and Baker also highlights the continued importance of full financial disclosure and independent representation in the prenuptial context, particularly where one party lacks financial sophistication or counsel.