## Facts

- Michelle C. Ferguson (former wife) and Jason E. Ferguson (former husband) entered a mediated marital settlement agreement that was incorporated into a final judgment of dissolution on August 8, 2008.
- The agreement addressed the marital residence (approximate value $950,000; mortgage approx. $603,000) and set a buyout/refinance structure.
- The husband agreed to pay the wife $185,000 within 60 days of executing the agreement and to refinance the residence within 120 days, bearing refinancing expenses.
- The wife was to execute a quitclaim deed to the husband to be held in escrow and delivered upon refinancing, after which the home would become the husband’s sole property.
- If the husband failed to refinance within 120 days, the agreement required the home to be listed for sale, with the net sale proceeds to be the husband’s sole property.
- After a downturn in the real estate market, the husband did not pay the $185,000 and did not refinance; he sought to proceed with a sale on different terms and argued impossibility based on economic conditions.
- The trial court accepted the impossibility argument, voided the real-property provision, ordered the wife to vacate, and ordered sale of the home with equal division of net proceeds.
- The wife appealed the order voiding the settlement provision and reallocating the sale proceeds.

## Issues

1. Whether an adverse real estate market decline can render performance under a mediated marital settlement agreement “impossible,” permitting a trial court to void the agreement’s real-property terms.
2. Whether a trial court may rewrite the parties’ negotiated allocation of rights in the marital residence by ordering an equal division of net sale proceeds contrary to the agreement.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the order voiding the settlement provision and reallocating sale proceeds.
- The court held that the economic downturn and decline in real estate values did not establish legal impossibility of performance.
- The court ruled that the trial court erred by setting aside the parties’ agreement and substituting a different distribution scheme.
- The case was remanded for proceedings consistent with enforcing the mediated settlement agreement as written.

## Legal Principles

- Mediated marital settlement agreements are treated as contracts and are enforced according to their terms absent a recognized basis for rescission or modification.
- The impossibility (or impracticability) doctrine is applied narrowly and does not excuse performance merely because it becomes more difficult, costly, or economically unfavorable.
- Foreseeable market fluctuations ordinarily do not constitute impossibility; parties are presumed to contract with awareness that economic conditions can change.
- Courts do not relieve a party from a “bad bargain” or rewrite a contract because later events make the deal unattractive.

## Conclusion

The appellate court required enforcement of the mediated marital settlement agreement’s negotiated real-property provisions, rejecting the husband’s claim that a real estate downturn made performance impossible and holding that the trial court could not void and restructure the parties’ bargain based on changed economic conditions.


Ferguson v. Ferguson, 54 So. 3d 553 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)