## Facts

- The parties cohabited for several years, became engaged in February 2002, and set a July 2002 wedding date.
- In early June 2002, the husband first raised the idea of a prenuptial agreement; in late June he provided a draft and suggested attorneys the wife could consult.
- Eleven days before the wedding, the wife met counsel who advised against signing because the agreement broadly waived marital and statutory rights, including alimony and attorney’s fees.
- The wife’s attorney attempted to contact the husband’s attorney about revisions, but the wife did not hear back until after the wedding.
- On the eve of the destination wedding in Las Vegas, the husband presented the final draft late at night and instructed the wife to sign and notarize it immediately; she searched for a notary into the early morning and signed without reading.
- The final version was largely unchanged except for limited alimony tied to the husband’s then-current net worth and a provision for the husband to provide health insurance.
- After the wedding, the wife’s attorney characterized the executed agreement as unfavorable and inequitable; the wife took no immediate steps to challenge it.
- In the dissolution proceeding, the husband sought enforcement of the prenuptial agreement; the trial court upheld it based on laches and ratification, denied alimony under Florida Statutes § 61.08 (2012), and structured equitable distribution based on the agreement.
- The wife appealed only the ruling enforcing the prenuptial agreement.

## Issues

1. Whether the prenuptial agreement was enforceable where the wife asserted it was executed under coercive circumstances and was substantively unfair.
2. Whether laches or ratification could bar the wife’s challenge and validate the agreement based on her post-marriage delay and conduct.

## Decision

- Affirmed the denial of alimony under Florida Statutes § 61.08 (2012) (not challenged on appeal).
- Reversed the determination that the prenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable.
- Held the record did not support applying laches or ratification to defeat the wife’s challenge.
- Reversed the equitable distribution award because it was predicated on enforcement of the prenuptial agreement.
- Remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision.

## Legal Principles

- A prenuptial agreement must be voluntarily executed and not the product of duress, coercion, or overreaching; timing, disclosure, and a meaningful opportunity for independent legal review are relevant to voluntariness.
- Laches requires (1) an unreasonable delay in asserting a known right and (2) resulting prejudice to the opposing party; passage of time alone is insufficient.
- Ratification requires an informed, intentional acceptance or confirmation of the agreement with knowledge of the right to avoid it; silence or continuation of the marriage, without proof of informed intent, is insufficient.
- When equitable distribution is constructed on the premise that a prenuptial agreement controls, reversal of enforceability generally requires reconsideration of distribution.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that laches and ratification were not established on this record and could not be used to enforce a prenuptial agreement challenged as involuntary; it therefore reversed enforcement of the agreement and the related equitable distribution and remanded, while leaving the unchallenged alimony denial intact.


Flaherty v. Flaherty, 128 So. 3d 920 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2013)