## Facts

- A wife and husband litigated dissolution of a nearly twelve-year marriage for roughly 1.5–2 years.
- The court ordered the parties to mediation; both attended with counsel.
- After a seven- to eight-hour mediation, the parties executed a 23-page marital settlement agreement covering alimony, accounts, IRAs, the husband’s federal and military-related pensions, and disposition of frozen embryos.
- The agreement stated the wife desired the embryos but “reluctantly agreed” to provide them to the husband for disposal.
- About a month later, the wife filed a motion to set aside the agreement; with new counsel, she asserted (1) duress/coercion by the husband and his attorney and (2) that the agreement was facially unfair and unreasonable; she also alleged mediator coercion and improper influence.
- A general master recommended enforcement; the trial court adopted the recommendations, entered a final judgment of dissolution pursuant to the agreement, and denied relief.
- The wife appealed, challenging the rejection of her claims of coercion by the husband/husband’s counsel and the failure to address alleged mediator misconduct.

## Issues

1. Whether the marital settlement agreement should have been set aside as procured by duress or coercion by the husband or the husband’s attorney.
2. Whether mediator misconduct in court-ordered mediation can be a ground to refuse enforcement of a resulting settlement agreement, and whether remand is required when the trial court made no findings on such allegations.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the determination that the wife failed to prove duress or coercion by the husband or his attorney.
- The appellate court held that mediator misconduct can justify a trial court’s refusal to enforce a settlement reached in court-ordered mediation.
- The appellate court reversed in part and remanded because neither the general master nor the trial court made findings on the wife’s allegations of mediator misconduct.

## Legal Principles

- A party seeking to set aside a settlement for duress or coercion bears the burden of proof; supported trial-level findings rejecting such claims will be upheld on appeal.
- In court-ordered mediation, the mediator functions as an agent of the court performing an official, court-directed role.
- A court may exercise inherent authority to protect the integrity of court-supervised processes by invalidating or refusing to enforce a mediation settlement obtained through violation and abuse of judicially prescribed mediation procedures.
- Mediator coercion or improper influence, particularly when tied to substantial violations of mediator conduct rules and causally connected to the agreement, can provide a basis to deny enforcement.
- When allegations of mediator misconduct are raised, the trial court must make factual findings on whether misconduct occurred and whether it induced the agreement.

## Conclusion

The court upheld enforcement of the settlement against claims of coercion by the husband and his counsel but recognized mediator misconduct in court-ordered mediation as a potential basis to refuse enforcement, requiring remand for factual findings on the mediator-related allegations.


Vitakis-Valchine v. Valchine, 793 So. 2d 1094 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2001)