Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Family Law Procedure
How long does a party have to challenge a final judgment based on a fraudulent financial affidavit? According to the Family Law Rules of Procedure, there is no time limit. A recent case, however, questions whether or not this rule allows a party to challenge a final judgment more than 10 years later and certifies this question to the Florida Supreme Court. The case is Mason v. Mason, 1D22-1871 (Fla. 1st DCA April 12, 2023).
When the parties divorced, they did not have lawyers. They prepared their own financial affidavits, a marital settlement agreement and a waiver of mandatory disclosure. Eleven years later, the former wife filed a motion for relief from judgment under Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.540(b) alleging the former husband’s financial affidavit “was intentionally false, misleading, and fraudulent because [he] intentionally failed to disclose or assign values to various marital assets, including, but not limited to, [eight accounts and businesses].” She also alleged that she was suffering from alcoholism and depression at the time of the divorce, that she was intoxicated when she signed the divorce documents, and that former husband was aware of this.
The former husband moved to dismiss the former wife’s motion, arguing that because the marital settlement agreement was entered before litigation, rule 12.540(b) did not apply. He reasoned that the former wife’s allegations of a bad bargain and/or incomplete knowledge were not enough to set aside the agreement under Casto v. Casto, 508 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1987). The trial court agreed with the former husband and dismissed the former wife’s motion. She appealed.
The appellate court reversed, holding “We reject the trial court’s reliance on Former Husband’s Casto and Macar argument. Neither of those cases addresses, let alone creates an exception to, the ‘no time limit’ rule at issue. Casto was a postnuptial case that arose in 1978, years before the creation of the ‘no time limit’ rule for fraud in marital cases. [. . .] Macar is equally inapposite. As to what Macar says about timing, we note that the Macar former wife’s motion for relief from judgment was filed less than a year after entry of the final judgment of dissolution, as the Second District’s opinion specifies. Macar v. Macar, 779 So. 2d 479, 481, 482 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). Hence, the rule–12.540(b) ‘no time limit’ provision was not at issue.” The court ruled the former wife was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on remand.
Schedule your consultation with a Miami family law attorney to discuss your case.