Posted by Nydia Streets of Streets Law in Florida Divorce
When a former spouse challenges a marital settlement agreement based on alleged fraud, can the court require the spouse accused of fraud to produce discovery? This was an issue in the case Paniry v. Paniry, 3D25-2107 (Fla. 3d DCA January 21, 2026).
The parties entered a marital settlement agreement which was ratified by a final judgment of divorce. Seven months later, the former wife moved to set aside the agreement based on alleged fraud committed by the former husband. Specifically, she alleged the former husband did not update his financial affidavit to show a change in income due to a promotion prior to the entry of the final judgment. In support of this, she attached to her motion an article which referenced his promotion but did not provide salary information. Notably at the time the final judgment was entered, the former wife stated “[The former husband] didn’t even provide his correct salary amount” which she referred to as a “deal breaker.” Despite these claims, the final judgment was entered, and the former wife did not appeal. When she filed her motion seven months later, the trial court granted a motion to require the former husband to provide discovery. The former husband objected and filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the appellate court, arguing it was improper for the court to allow discovery before determining that the former wife pled a prima facie case for fraud.
The appellate court noted “Here, Dawn testified at the final hearing that David’s financial information was false. Yet despite this apparent knowledge, she entered into a settlement agreement that necessarily relied on that allegedly false information. Dawn did not move for rehearing and did not appeal the agreed final judgment. The Florida Supreme Court has explained that a party challenging a final judgment cannot claim lack of knowledge where ‘through due diligence, they could have unearthed all relevant facts.’ [internal citation omitted].”
The court concluded “trial court correctly prevented more invasive financial discovery pending such a determination, but it improperly permitted the request for admissions that is the subject of this petition. We take no position at this time on the ultimate outcome, but prior to permitting any discovery, the trial court should have first determined whether the allegations sufficiently establish a prima facie case of fraud. And if so, next the trial court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing on whether Dawn could have or should have discovered the information before agreeing to the terms of the marital settlement agreement. We therefore grant the petition and quash the order on review.”
This article is not legal advice and is for general information only. Schedule a consultation with a Miami family law attorney to determine how the law may apply to your case.