## Facts

- The wife filed for dissolution in 1994; both spouses were represented by counsel throughout.
- The parties litigated for roughly two years in a highly adversarial posture, filing numerous substantive motions and engaging in substantial discovery, including expert-related requests.
- The case was scheduled for trial multiple times before the parties announced a settlement shortly before the final trial date.
- The settlement was placed on the record before a court reporter; counsel reviewed the terms item by item, and each client was examined under oath to confirm agreement.
- Under oath, the wife affirmed she participated in negotiations, understood the settlement, intended to be bound, and entered it freely and voluntarily after advice of counsel.
- The wife later moved to set aside or invalidate the settlement, arguing it was unfair and unreasonable and that a key term concerning the marital home’s mortgage obligations was ambiguous or not mutually understood.
- The trial court refused to invalidate the settlement on “fair and reasonable” grounds and identified an ambiguity in the mortgage-related provision but declined to construe it without clarification.

## Issues

1. Whether a dissolution settlement reached after prolonged, counsel-led, adversarial litigation and discovery must be subjected to a “fair and reasonable” judicial review associated with marital agreements challenged as substantively unfair.
2. Whether an ambiguous settlement provision concerning mortgage obligations required remand to determine the parties’ actual intent.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the refusal to set aside the settlement based on alleged substantive unfairness.
- The court held that, given the arm’s-length, litigation-ending nature of the agreement and the parties’ representation and discovery history, the trial court was not required to conduct a Del Vecchio-type “fair and reasonable” review.
- The court remanded for the trial court to determine the parties’ actual intent regarding the ambiguous mortgage-related provision and to construe that term accordingly.

## Legal Principles

- A settlement reached to end ongoing dissolution litigation after extensive adversarial proceedings, with separate counsel and ample opportunity for discovery, is treated like an arm’s-length civil settlement and is generally enforceable without a separate substantive “fair and reasonable” review.
- The heightened scrutiny applied to certain spousal agreements formed within a confidential marital relationship does not automatically apply to litigation-ending settlements reached after the parties have become legal adversaries.
- A party’s sworn, on-the-record assent—confirming understanding, voluntariness, and intent to be bound—strongly supports enforceability absent traditional invalidating grounds (e.g., fraud or coercion).
- When a settlement term is ambiguous and resolution depends on determining the parties’ intent, the proper remedy is remand for fact-finding and construction of the provision.

## Conclusion

The court enforced an on-the-record dissolution settlement reached after extended, counseled, adversarial litigation without requiring a separate substantive fairness determination, but remanded for the trial court to resolve an ambiguity in the mortgage-related term by determining the parties’ actual intent.


Petracca v. Petracca, 706 So. 2d 904 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1998)