Case Name: Daniel B. HAHN, Jr., Appellant, v. Lorraine J. HAHN, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-03-21
Citations: 465 So. 2d 1352
Docket Number: No. 84-473
Parties: Daniel B. HAHN, Jr., Appellant, v. Lorraine J. HAHN, Appellee.
Judges: FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., concurs with opinion.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 465
Pages: 1352–1357

Head Matter:
Daniel B. HAHN, Jr., Appellant, v. Lorraine J. HAHN, Appellee.
No. 84-473.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
March 21, 1985.
Frank J. Griffith, Jr., of Nabors, Hotter, McClelland, Griffith & Jones, P.A., Titus-ville, for appellant.
Lorraine J. Hahn, in pro. per.

Opinion:
COBB, Chief Judge.
Appellant, Daniel B. Hahn, Jr., brings this timely appeal from a final judgment of dissolution of marriage which dissolved his marriage of approximately 33 years to Lorraine J. Hahn.
The evidence shows that the parties, Lorraine, age 52, and Daniel,, age 58, have been married since 1950. The parties had three children, who are now all married and have attained their majorities. The husband earns approximately $30,000 per year and is employed as a personnel director for the Board of County Commissioners. The wife has a high school education, and attended approximately six months of business school. She also has a real estate license, which she acquired two years prior to the final hearing, but has not made any sales. At the time of the final hearing, she was employed part-time at Ivey's Department Store as a sales clerk.
Prior to the filing of the petition for dissolution of marriage, the parties, each being represented by independent legal counsel, entered into a property settlement agreement dated October 20, 1982. This agreement provided that the husband pay to the wife the sum of $700 per month as temporary alimony, continuing until the former marital home of the parties was sold or the wife remarried, whichever event occurred first. When the marital home was sold, all costs of the transaction would be deducted and the remaining net proceeds would be divided, with the husband receiving $5,000 in cash and the wife the remaining amount. Additionally, the wife was to receive the parties' 1977 Cordoba automobile, and the husband was to receive the parties' 1978 Toyota Célica. Also, the husband was to be responsible for the payment of $125 towards the wife's attorney's fee. The property settlement agreement also contained a clause whereby the parties agreed that they would waive any other rights they may have, including alimony.
The marital home was sold approximately a year from the date of the signing of the agreement, having netted a price of $122,000. There was an existing mortgage on the house of $22,000. The wife received over $29,000 in cash from the proceeds of the sale, and the husband received $2,000 in cash, apparently waiving $3,000. The wife also received a long-term mortgage of 20 years which pays $729 per month. In other words, the wife received all but $2,000 of the equity in the home.
On July 11, 1983, the husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage with the Brevard County Circuit Court. In his petition he asked that the court adopt the property settlement agreement. The wife filed a reply to the petition on August 5, 1983, and also requested the agreement be adopted by the trial court in the event of dissolution. At the trial, the husband appeared represented by counsel, and the wife appeared on behalf of herself. During the trial, the court accepted into evidence the property settlement agreement, but found the portion of the agreement dealing with alimony to be unconscionable. The court added to the property settlement agreement an award of $50.00 per month alimony and required the husband to keep medical and hospitalization insurance for the wife. During the proceedings, the wife did not request any of these changes. The husband appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in its unsolicited amendment of the agreement of the parties.
The initial legal issue raised by this appeal is whether or not an agreement between two competent adults regarding alimony, when incorporated in a property settlement agreement, can be voided by the trial court in the absence of any allegations or proof of fraud, duress, deceit, coercion or overreaching on the part of the party obtaining the agreement. In regard to a pure property settlement agreement, the answer clearly is no. See Bockoven v. Bockoven, 444 So.2d 30 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983); Bubenik v. Bubenik, 392 So.2d 943 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980).
The basic rule of Florida law, of course, is that a spouse may waive her right to alimony of any type (although not child support, absent court approval) through an antenuptial or post-nuptial agreement. See Ivanhoe v. Ivanhoe, 397 So.2d 410 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); Kirkconnell v. Kirkconnell, 222 So.2d 441 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Such a waiver does not contravene public policy. Kilpatrick v. McLouth, 392 So.2d 985 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).
In Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So.2d 7 (Fla.1972), the Florida Supreme Court held that agreements as to post-marriage alimony are binding if there is compliance with the standards set forth in Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, 143 So.2d 17 (Fla.1962). Del Vecchio emphasized the element of fairness between the parties at the time of execution of the agreement, and held:
. 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.
Id. at 21. Basically, the standards of Del Vecchio are those encompassed by consideration of the elements that we alluded to in Bockoven: fraud, duress, deceit, coercion and overreaching. See O'Connor v. O'Connor, 435 So.2d 344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
In the instant case, there was no evidence of any of the foregoing elements at the time of the agreement between the parties. The wife did testify, without specifics, that she was "emotionally abused" at the time she signed the agreement, but courts have recognized that it is normal for parties in a dissolution proceeding to be emotionally upset. That emotion is not grounds to set aside an otherwise duly-executed property settlement agreement. See Bailey v. Bailey, 300 So.2d 294 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
We hold, therefore, that the appellee herein was bound by her agreement, and that the trial court erred by rejecting that agreement. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for entry of a judgment enforcing the agreement as written.
REVERSED and REMANDED.
FRANK D. UPCHURCH, Jr., J., concurs with opinion.
SHARP, J., dissents with opinion.
. Cf. Blanton v. Blanton, 413 So.2d 453 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); Young v. Young, 322 So.2d 594 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), review denied, 333 So.2d 466 (Fla.1976), in regard to prejudgment support.