Bates v. Bates
The Third DCA, sitting en banc on the husband's motion for rehearing of a panel decision affirming invalidation of a prenuptial agreement for duress/coercion, split 5-5. Under Rule 9.331(a), the tie meant the motion was denied and the panel opinion stands as the decision of the court. Extensive concurring and dissenting opinions debate the scope of competent-substantial-evidence review, the elements of contractual duress/coercion, the limits of en banc jurisdiction, and the availability of the tipsy coachman doctrine.
Key facts
- Husband and wife disputed the validity of a prenuptial agreement; the trial court found it invalid based on duress and/or coercion.
- A three-judge panel of the Third DCA affirmed the trial court's invalidation of the prenuptial agreement.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
Although the disposition is procedural, the opinion is a useful citation vehicle on several transferable points: the effect of a tie vote under Rule 9.331(a), the narrow scope of en banc jurisdiction, and a forceful… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.