Case Name: Mary Patricia O'CONNOR, Appellant, v. James John O'CONNOR, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1983-07-22
Citations: 435 So. 2d 344
Docket Number: No. AP-272
Parties: Mary Patricia O’CONNOR, Appellant, v. James John O’CONNOR, Appellee.
Judges: WIGGINTON, J., concurs.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 435
Pages: 344–347

Head Matter:
Mary Patricia O’CONNOR, Appellant, v. James John O’CONNOR, Appellee.
No. AP-272.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.
July 22, 1983.
Wayne R. Compton, Jacksonville, for appellant.
Clyde W. Davis, Fernandina Beach, for appellee.

Opinion:
THOMPSON, Judge.
The wife appeals a final judgment dissolving the marriage of the parties and distributing the marital assets in accordance with a property settlement agreement previously executed by the parties. The wife contends the trial court should have set aside the property settlement agreement because it was unfair to the wife and because the husband failed to act with candor and in good faith in negotiating the settlement. We affirm.
The trial judge made the following findings: the wife agreed to a property settlement of $10,000 with $4,000 payable immediately, a stipulation agreement was prepared along with an answer and waiver and the wife signed the original stipulation without the husband being present, the wife received the $4,000 agreed upon and has spent most of the money; the wife testified she was frightened of the husband but there was no evidence of any physical abuse or threats during the marriage at anytime including the period of settlement negotiations; there was no fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, or overreaching by the husband in the property settlement negotiations; while the wife's share of the parties' assets was not adequate, the wife possessed a general and approximate knowledge of her husband's property; and although her knowledge was not detailed or exact she had a general knowledge of the character and extent of the husband's property at the time she voluntarily agreed to the disposition.
We agree with the trial court that the property settlement was inadequate. However, a property settlement agreement made by a husband and wife in good faith and free from fraud, deceit, duress, coercion or overreaching should be upheld by the court. As stated by the Supreme Court in Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, 143 So.2d 17, 21 (Fla.1962):
And while the disclosure should be full, fair and open, it need not be minutely detailed nor exact. The test is the adequacy of the knowledge of the woman— she must have had some understanding of her rights and a general and approximate knowledge of his property and resources. The basic issue is concealment, not the absence of disclosure, and the wife may not repudiate if she is not prejudiced by lack of information.
The finding of the trial court that there was no fraud or duress and that the wife had a general and approximate knowledge of the character and extent of her husband's property at the time she voluntarily agreed to the disposition is supported by competent substantial evidence and the court's denial of the wife's motion to set aside the property agreement must be affirmed.
The wife relies on Baker v. Baker, 394 So.2d 465 (Fla. 4th DCA), pet. for rev. denied, 402 So.2d 607 (Fla.1981), in which the court set aside a property settlement agreement. In Baker the court found that the husband concealed and misrepresented his income and assets and concluded that the property settlement agreement was so tainted with fraud and deception that it was an abuse of discretion to deny the wife's motion for relief. No such factual circumstances exist in this case.
AFFIRMED.
WIGGINTON, J., concurs.
ERVIN, C.J., dissents.