Relevant Rules: Florida Family Law Rule 12.540 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540
Relevant case: Romero v. Romero, 959 So.2d 33 (2007)
Facts: Parties married in 1990, separated in 1998, and a petition was filed 7/20/99. Parties drafted a marital settlement agreement in January 1999. Wife signed it on 7/6/99 and filed FA on 9/23/99. Husband signed MSA on 7/20/99 and filed FA on 7/20/99. MSA was entered on 9/27/99.
Three years later, Husband petitioned to modify child support. Wife became aware that Husband had exercised stock options which led to a substantial increase in his income claimed on his 2000 taxes. Stock was offered to Husband in March 1999. ¼ of the stock would vest after one year of employment, then 1/48th of the remaining stock would vest every month for the next 48 months. At the time the final judgment was entered, no stock had vested. Wife testified that she was unaware of the stock options at the time of signing the MSA and the options were not disclosed on Husband’s financial affidavit. Wife filed supplemental petition stating she didn’t know of the stock options and would have wanted half. She said she would have exercised all the options then immediately sold the stock to reduce her mortgage. Trial court ruled that options were marital assets and subject to equitable distribution. Court used W’s experts values of the stock and W’s portion would be $198k, after accounting for taxes.
Holding: Florida has a well-recognized policy favoring the finality of judgments, especially in family law contexts. Once the litigation is terminated and the time for appeal has run, that action is concluded for all time. The only exception to this “absolute finality” of final judgments is Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, which provides limited avenues by which a party can petition for relief from a final judgment.
Appellate court reversed the lower court’s ruling. It agreed that non-vested stock acquired during marriage is subject to equitable distribution. The court also agreed with trial court’s findings that Wife did not know about the stock at time of signing. However, it found that just because H did not disclose stock options on his FA it was not enough to support relief from a final judgment.
Trial court reversed because trial court did not make an adequate finding of fraud. The original property distribution was reinstated.
What to keep in mind:
1) To set aside a judgment in a family law case, Florida Family Law Rule 12.540 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 apply.
2) To set aside a judgment/order in a family law case, there must be sufficient grounds (mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, the judgment is now void, or the judgment has been satisfied).
3) To set aside a judgment in a family law case, it must be filed within one year, unless the motion is based on fraudulent financial affidavits, or unless judgment is void or has been satisfied.
Relevant case: Romero v. Romero, 959 So.2d 33 (2007)
Facts: Parties married in 1990, separated in 1998, and a petition was filed 7/20/99. Parties drafted a marital settlement agreement in January 1999. Wife signed it on 7/6/99 and filed FA on 9/23/99. Husband signed MSA on 7/20/99 and filed FA on 7/20/99. MSA was entered on 9/27/99.
Three years later, Husband petitioned to modify child support. Wife became aware that Husband had exercised stock options which led to a substantial increase in his income claimed on his 2000 taxes. Stock was offered to Husband in March 1999. ¼ of the stock would vest after one year of employment, then 1/48th of the remaining stock would vest every month for the next 48 months. At the time the final judgment was entered, no stock had vested. Wife testified that she was unaware of the stock options at the time of signing the MSA and the options were not disclosed on Husband’s financial affidavit. Wife filed supplemental petition stating she didn’t know of the stock options and would have wanted half. She said she would have exercised all the options then immediately sold the stock to reduce her mortgage. Trial court ruled that options were marital assets and subject to equitable distribution. Court used W’s experts values of the stock and W’s portion would be $198k, after accounting for taxes.
Holding: Florida has a well-recognized policy favoring the finality of judgments, especially in family law contexts. Once the litigation is terminated and the time for appeal has run, that action is concluded for all time. The only exception to this “absolute finality” of final judgments is Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540, which provides limited avenues by which a party can petition for relief from a final judgment.
Appellate court reversed the lower court’s ruling. It agreed that non-vested stock acquired during marriage is subject to equitable distribution. The court also agreed with trial court’s findings that Wife did not know about the stock at time of signing. However, it found that just because H did not disclose stock options on his FA it was not enough to support relief from a final judgment.
Trial court reversed because trial court did not make an adequate finding of fraud. The original property distribution was reinstated.
What to keep in mind:
1) To set aside a judgment in a family law case, Florida Family Law Rule 12.540 and Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 apply.
2) To set aside a judgment/order in a family law case, there must be sufficient grounds (mistake, newly discovered evidence, fraud, the judgment is now void, or the judgment has been satisfied).
3) To set aside a judgment in a family law case, it must be filed within one year, unless the motion is based on fraudulent financial affidavits, or unless judgment is void or has been satisfied.
By Kenny Leigh
