Johnston v. Johnston

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District · 2024 · Family Law

Family LawPrenuptial AgreementsEquitable Distributionprenuptial agreementequitable distributionjointly titled real propertynonmarital propertyseparate property

Facts

The parties married in 2015 and, during the marriage, purchased the Estrella and Hatcher Road Properties, both of which were jointly titled. Their prenuptial agreement provided that all jointly owned real property at the time of dissolution would constitute marital property subject to equitable distribution unless separately titled, and if Husband intended property to remain separate despite Wife's name being added, the parties had to execute a written document evidencing that intent. Husband used $91,240.13 and $96,000.00 of his separate funds to acquire the two properties. On rehearing, the trial court concluded that because the properties were jointly titled and no separate-intent writing existed, each party was entitled to 50% of the net sale proceeds without reimbursement to Husband.

Issue

When a prenuptial agreement states that all jointly owned real property at the time a dissolution petition is filed is marital property subject to equitable distribution unless separately titled or covered by a written separate-intent document, may a spouse still carve out reimbursement for separate funds used to acquire that jointly titled real property under more general provisions protecting property purchased with separate funds?

Rule

A court interprets a prenuptial agreement de novo, and if the agreement's language is clear and unambiguous, its plain language controls. Under a prenuptial agreement that specifically provides that all jointly owned real property at the time of dissolution is marital property subject to equitable distribution unless separately titled or supported by a written document showing intent to keep it separate, a spouse is not entitled to a special equity or reimbursement for separate funds used to acquire that jointly titled real property based on more general separate-property provisions.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Torres and Evan Blake signed a prenuptial agreement before marrying in Florida. It states that all jointly owned real property existing when a dissolution petition is filed is marital property subject to equitable distribution unless separately titled, and if one spouse intends to keep such property separate despite adding the other spouse to title, both must sign a written document stating that intent. During the marriage, Evan used only his premarital funds to buy a duplex in Orlando, but he titled it in both names and no separate-intent writing was signed.

In their divorce, Evan argues he should first receive reimbursement of his premarital contribution under another clause stating that property purchased with separate funds remains separate property. Which result is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. When a prenuptial agreement unambiguously provides that jointly owned real property at dissolution is marital unless separately titled or covered by a signed writing preserving separate status, the plain language controls. A more general separate-funds clause does not create a reimbursement carveout for jointly titled real property because the specific real-property provision governs and an opposite reading would nullify it.