Blog

What Type of Coercion is Necessary to Throw Out a Prenup in the Orlando, Florida Area?

In Bates v Bates, 46 Florida Law Weekly D287 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2021), the appellate court found that the trial court did not err in finding a premarital agreement invalid as product of coercion upon concluding that wife was coerced by her husband into signing an agreement. 

There were time pressure aspects, such as the parties’ courtship, as well as the wife’s vulnerable emotional position due to the wife experiencing pain from having an abortion two weeks prior. In addition, the parties had an upcoming appointment at the Colombian embassy to start the emigration process for the wife, which the husband insisted could not take place unless his wife signed the agreement. The appellate court also ruled that the trial court erred in finding that the agreement was also invalid as a product of duress. The appellate court discussed the distinction between coercion and duress. 

Invalidating a Prenuptial Agreement

There are two distinct grounds for invalidating a prenuptial agreement: (1) where the defending spouse has engaged in fraud, deceit, coercion, misrepresentation, or overarching and (2) where the agreement makes an unfair or unreasonable provision for challenging spouse, given the relative circumstances of the parties. 

Coercion and Duress

In the context of considering whether a prenuptial agreement is invalid, the courts have defined duress as a condition of the mind produced by improper external pressure or influence that practically destroys the free agency of a party and causes him/her to do an act or make a contract not of his or her own volition. 

To prove duress the challenging spouse must show: (1) that the act sought to be set aside was affected involuntarily and thus not an exercise of free will and (2) that this condition of the mind was caused by some improper and coercive conduct of the opposite side. In other words, the defending spouse’s external pressure must result in the challenging spouse’s subjective loss of free will at the time the prenuptial agreement is signed. The party claiming duress must establish that the effects of the alleged coercive behavior affected their subjective intent to act. Duress can occur where the defending spouse threatens an action— even an action that the defending spouse has a right to take— for the defending spouse’s own pecuniary advantage. 

Bates v Bates Case

In this case, neither party presented the court with case law defining coercion in the context of determining the validity of a prenuptial agreement, and the court stated that its review of Florida case law did not reveal any such definition. 

The court stated that it appears that the Florida appellate courts have applied the terms interchangeably. The court went on to state that Black’s Law Dictionary defines coercion as the compulsion of a free agent by physical, moral, or economic threat of physical force. The court found that coercion occurs where the defending spouse, through undue influence or moral or economic force, compels the challenging spouse to sign an agreement under circumstances which, from a subjective viewpoint, evidence that the challenging spouse did not act of his or her own free will.  

The appellate court ruled that there was no evidence that the husband threatened to besmirch his wife’s reputation for his own pecuniary gain. The appellate court concluded that there was not competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding of duress. However, it upheld the trial court’s decision that there was coercion.

If you have questions regarding a Prenuptial Agreement matter, you may call Ann Marie Giordano Gilden at Ann Marie Giordano Gilden, P.A. at 407-732-7620 and set an initial consultation. 

This article is for informational purposes only and does not form an attorney client privilege.