## Facts

- After dissolution proceedings, the parties resolved property distribution through a mediated settlement agreement that the trial court incorporated into the final judgment.
- During extended mediation, the wife sent the husband a note threatening that, if he did not agree, the children would provide “information” to authorities to have him arrested.
- The threatened “information” involved photographs suggesting potential criminal exposure for the husband.
- Soon after the threat, the parties reached a settlement producing a highly unequal distribution: the wife received about $128,000 in marital assets and the husband about $10,000.
- The trial judge acknowledged the “extortionate nature” of the note but concluded the agreement did not result from the wife’s demands, noting (a) the husband continued negotiating after the note and (b) he sought relief only after reconciliation efforts failed.
- The husband moved for relief from the final judgment and challenged a related contempt citation based on the agreement; the trial court denied relief.

## Issues

1. Whether a mediated marital settlement agreement incorporated into a final judgment must be set aside when obtained through extortionate threats of criminal exposure.
2. Whether continued negotiation after the threat and delay in seeking relief can negate the coercive effect of an extortionate threat on the validity of the agreement.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the denial of relief from the final judgment and the associated contempt ruling, and remanded.
- The court held the wife’s note constituted “classic extortion” that tainted the mediated settlement.
- The court rejected the trial court’s view that continued negotiations broke the causal link; the record supported that negotiations could reflect efforts to secure return of potentially incriminating materials as part of the quid pro quo.
- The court rejected the inference that delay in seeking relief (during attempted reconciliation) showed the agreement was voluntary.
- The grossly unequal distribution of assets was strong circumstantial evidence that the extortion influenced the settlement.

## Legal Principles

- A settlement agreement incorporated into a judgment may be set aside when consent was induced by extortion or comparable coercion that undermines voluntariness.
- Courts should not approve or enforce agreements produced by conduct that is contemptuous of the judicial process, including threats of criminal prosecution used to obtain civil concessions.
- Continued bargaining after a threat and later pursuit of relief do not, by themselves, eliminate the coercive effect where the record otherwise shows the agreement was influenced by extortion.
- A highly disproportionate settlement outcome may corroborate that coercion affected the agreement.

## Conclusion

The court held that an extortionate threat made during mediation undermined the voluntariness of a marital settlement and required relief from the judgment incorporating it, notwithstanding continued negotiations and a delayed request for relief; the lopsided asset division supported the finding that extortion influenced the agreement.


Cooper v. Austin, 750 So. 2d 711 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2000)