Flaherty v. Flaherty
Florida District Court of Appeal
128 So. 3d 920 (2013)
- Written by Jamie Milne, JD
Facts
Jerald Flaherty (defendant) and Susan Flaherty (plaintiff) planned to marry on July 13, 2002. Jerald first told Susan that he wanted a prenuptial agreement in early June. He presented Susan with a first draft later that month, less than one month before the wedding. He simultaneously provided Susan with the names of attorneys she might consult regarding the agreement. When Susan met with an attorney 11 days before the wedding, the attorney advised Susan not to sign the agreement because it waived her interest in assets acquired during marriage, her right to any alimony in the event of divorce, and her right to an elective share in the event of Jerald’s death. The attorney said she would attempt to negotiate a revised version with Jerald’s attorney. Susan did not hear back from her attorney before heading to Las Vegas for the wedding. On the eve of the wedding, Jerald presented a final draft of the prenuptial agreement to Susan and told her to sign and notarize it before the ceremony. A frantic search to find a notary in the middle of the night ensued, and Susan signed the agreement without reading it. The agreement was almost identical to the first draft except that it required Jerald to provide health insurance for Susan and allowed her limited alimony in the event of divorce. Susan’s attorney did not see the final draft until after its execution, at which point she wrote a letter to Susan stating that the agreement remained unfavorable and inequitable. The attorney did not offer any suggestions for legal recourse to invalidate the agreement. Susan filed the letter away and did not take any further action. When Susan later filed for divorce, Jerald presented the prenuptial agreement and argued that it governed regarding the division of the spouses’ property and the award of any spousal support. Over Susan’s objection, the trial court deemed the prenuptial agreement valid and enforced its terms. Susan appealed, arguing that the agreement was invalid because it was executed under duress and coercion.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Sleet, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

