Parra De Rey v. Rey
| Decision Date | 22 May 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 3D12–363.,3D12–363. |
| Citation | 114 So.3d 371 |
| Parties | Stella Maris PARRA DE REY a/k/a Stella Maria Parra de Rey, Appellant, v. Alfonso REY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Robert S. Glazier, Miami, for appellant.
Law Offices of Greene Smith & Associates, P.A., and Cynthia L. Greene, Miami, for appellee.
Before ROTHENBERG and EMAS, JJ., and SCHWARTZ, Senior Judge.
Stella Maris Parra de Rey a/k/a Stella Maria Parra de Rey (“the Wife”) appeals from a final judgment for dissolution of marriage entered pursuant to Alfonso Rey's (“the Husband”) motion for summary judgment, upholding the validity of a marital settlement agreement entered into between the parties. We affirm.
The Husband and the Wife married in 1982. During their twenty-eight year marriage, the Husband became a successful businessman, amassing substantial wealth. During that same time, the Wife owned and operated a series of beauty supply businesses.
Eventually, the parties experienced marital difficulties, and in December 2007, the Husband filed a petition for dissolution of marriage (“the First Dissolution Action”). During the pendency of the First Dissolution Action, the parties, who were attempting to resolve their differences, began to negotiate a marital settlement agreement that would control the terms of any future dissolution.
In January 2008, the Husband's attorney sent the Wife's attorney and the Wife's accountant a draft of a proposed agreement, along with a box of various personal and corporate financial records. In response, the Wife requested that the Husband submit a financial affidavit and other financial records, which the Husband immediately provided. After the Wife reviewed the additional documents with her counsel and forensic accountant, the Wife's accountant compiled a list of additional financial documents to be produced by the Husband. After the Husband's counsel received the list, which the Wife's accountant admitted was quite expansive, the parties set a meeting to “try to narrow down what [the accountant] really needed” and possibly to reach a settlement.
That meeting took place on March 10, 2008, with the Husband, the Wife, their attorneys, and their accountants in attendance. At some point during the meeting, the Husband proposed settlement terms. The Wife's accountant, however, indicated that neither he nor the Wife's counsel could make any recommendations until the Husband furnished additional financial information. The Husband agreed to provide the additional records, but also withdrew the settlement offer. As the Wife's counsel confirmed:
Q. Then at that point Mr. [Roberto] Dilena— [, the Husband's accountant,] went outside with Mr. Rey and myself. We came back in and said,
A. That's correct.
The Wife then spoke with her lawyer and accountant; told them she wanted to take the offer even though the Husband had not yet furnished the additional financial statements; and instructed her accountant not to seek additional financial disclosure. The Wife's counsel and the Wife's accountant both advised her not to accept the offer without additional financial disclosure. Specifically, the Wife's accountant explained as follows:
A. I explained to her that I could not make any conclusion of value on any of the entities or a conclusion of value as to income or any other assets until I concluded my due diligence, which included the proposed meeting with myself and ... the husband's accountant to go over the items that I needed to complete my valuations.
....
Q. So what was her response?
A. Her response was that she wanted to take this offer and she wanted not to continue on with the valuations.
....
Q.... Your recommendation was you could make no recommendation until all the records were reviewed, analyzed and values affixed on everything?
A. That is correct.
Q. Ms. Parra chose to ignore that advice, correct?
A. Ms. Parra said she wanted to settle her case.
....
Q.... You were prepared to do whatever discovery needed to be done in order to make recommendations as to income, valuations of assets, valuations of liabilities, correct?
A. That is correct.
Q. You were prepared to do a lifestyle analysis if one were required?
A. Yes.
Q. You were going to do everything?
A. Whatever was requested of me, absolutely.
Q. And the only reason you didn't is because she told you to stop?
A. Yes.
....
A.... I expressed to her that I could not make any determinations, and I could not advise her as to whether any of the values on that chart were correct or not without completing my work which consisted of me doing my due diligence on all of the companies and all of the assets.
Q. Did you suggest that maybe she should just wait a while and see what you came up with before she made such a decision?
A. I had suggested that she let me work with the accountant on his offer to review the rest of the records and complete my work with respect to the valuations.
Q. Her decision or statement to you was?
A. Her decision was she wanted to accept the offer and not continue on with the valuations.
The Wife's accountant and the Wife's counsel also confirmed that the Husband had been completely cooperative with respect to his financial disclosures up until the point the Wife instructed them to discontinue seeking financial information. In this regard, the Wife's accountant testified as follows:
Q.... At any time during the litigation, did either Mr. Rey or myself refuse to provide you with records that you were requesting?
A. No.
Q. Were Mr. Rey and my office cooperative in trying to provide you with documentation?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, obviously you didn't have every single record and that would take a period of time. But did you find that whatever was requested, Mr. Rey was making his best efforts to obtain those records for you?
A. Yes
Q. Did you ever find in the case that Mr. Rey or myself were in any way trying to frustrate the discovery process?
A. No.
....
A. I received initially, without a request, a box of documents from your office. Upon reviewing and analyzing the records I received from your office, I put out a request list for additional documents, but the bulk of the documents came without me even requesting them.
Q. So it was done voluntarily?
A. It was done prior to me even issuing a document request, correct.
.... Q. Were there discussions that Mr. Dilena would be in contact with you directly and you with him directly without the intervention of the lawyers, to try to gather up whatever documentation you needed?
A. That's correct.
The Wife's counsel likewise confirmed that the Husband cooperated with respect to his financial information:
Q. Now, up to that point did you see any efforts on the part of my office to frustrate your request for documents?
A. No.
Q. Did you request any documents that you're aware of that we just said we're not going to give to you?
A. No. There were outstanding document requests, but there was not a flat out denial of providing a document.
Q. And some records were coming, not all at one time, but records were being provided to Mike Everett, [the Wife's accountant]?
A. Correct.
Q. So basically as we received them they were going over to your side?
....
A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
Over the next few months, the parties engaged in negotiations, which the Wife admits resulted in the incorporation of several terms that were to her benefit. In June 2008, the Husband provided a second financial affidavit to the Wife. Between June 20, 2008, and July 12, 2008, the Wife met with her counsel six times to discuss the proposed agreement. The Wife's accountant explained to the Wife the terms of the agreement in great detail. Additionally, the Wife's accountant composed and presented to the Wife an equitable distribution schedule from the financial information he had obtained from the Husband, which demonstrated that the Wife should receive an additional $7,033,435 to equalize the proposed share of assets.
Q. So, according to your Equitable Distribution Schedule that you prepared with the numbers that you applied, in order to equalize Mr. Rey would have owed to Ms. Parra $7,033,435; correct?
A. Yes, correct.
....
Q. Was this schedule provided to Ms. McMillan?
A. Yes.
Q. Was it provided to Ms. Parra, to the best of your knowledge?
A. Yes.
....
Q.... Assuming she did not receive the equalization payment and everything was left in the columns that you have, then that deal would not have been a good deal that was bargained?
A. Based on this chart if she didn't receive this equalizer, then no.
Q. But that was communicated to her, to the best of your knowledge?
A. To the best of my knowledge.
....
Q. So this was all discussed beforehand?
A. This schedule was absolutely discussed, yes.
Q. What did Ms. Parra say about it?
A. She wanted to accept the offer.
Q. In spite of the disparity in the offer?
A. She understood the disparity, but she wanted to accept the offer.
The Wife's counsel explained to the Wife that she did not need to sign the agreement, and she could continue to pursue further financial disclosure and engage in additional negotiations. The Wife, however,-insisted on entering into the agreement.
The agreement, which explained that the parties were attempting to reconcile and “strengthen their marriage,” was signed by the Husband on July 21, 2008, and by the Wife on July 23, 2008. Pursuant to the agreement, the Wife would receive over $6.8 million of the parties' assets, including $175,000 cash upon the execution of the agreement. The Husband would retain the remaining assets. The agreement also provided that each party waived any claim to alimony. Regarding the voluntariness of the execution of the agreement, the agreement states that:
8.1. Each party has had the opportunity to have independent counsel and legal advice of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bates v. Bates
...in the challenging spouse's subjective loss of free will at the time the prenuptial agreement is signed. Id.; Parra de Rey v. Rey, 114 So. 3d 371, 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) ("[T]he party claiming duress must establish that the effects of the alleged coercive behavior affected their subjective ......
-
Bates v. Bates
... ... for unreasonableness and the test for duress/coercion in its ... analysis ... Duress, ... applicable here, requires some improper or illegal conduct on ... the part of the party seeking to enforce the agreement ... See Parra de Rey v. Rey , 114 So.3d 371, 387 (Fla. 3d ... DCA 2013) ("Duress 'is a condition of mind produced ... by an improper external pressure or influence that ... practically destroys the free agency of a party and causes ... him to do an act or make a contract not of his own ... ...
-
Bates v. Bates
... ... for unreasonableness and the test for duress/coercion in its ... analysis ... Duress, ... applicable here, requires some improper or illegal conduct on ... the part of the party seeking to enforce the agreement ... See Parra de Rey v. Rey , 114 So.3d 371, 387 (Fla. 3d ... DCA 2013) ("Duress 'is a condition of mind produced ... by an improper external pressure or influence that ... practically destroys the free agency of a party and causes ... him to do an act or make a contract not of his own ... ...
-
Kingland Estates, Ltd. v. Davis
...made them does not constitute an acceptable pleading of a defense based upon false misrepresentation’); see also Parra de Rey v. Rey, 114 So.3d 371, 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013) (confirming that fraud must be pled with particularity and must specifically identify misrepresentations or omissions o......
-
Legal theories & defenses
...when challenged by a motion to dismiss. See JAK Cap., LLC v. Adams , 306 So. 3d 1285, 1287 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020); Parra de Rey v. Rey , 114 So.3d 371, 386 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013). 16. Illegality: courts will refuse to enforce, as a matter of public policy, illegal contracts. See Armco Drainage and ......