O'Hair v. O'Hair
More than a decade after a marital settlement agreement was ratified and incorporated into a final dissolution judgment, the trial court set the agreement aside based on duress, relying solely on Casto v. Casto and never reaching timeliness. The Sixth DCA reversed, holding that once an agreement is incorporated into a final judgment, a party can only attack it by obtaining relief from the judgment under rule 12.540(b) (the family-law analogue of rule 1.540(b)), and remanded for the trial court to analyze the grounds and timeliness under that rule.
Key facts
- Husband and wife entered into a marital settlement agreement that was ratified and incorporated into a final dissolution judgment over a decade before the wife sought relief.
- The wife filed a motion to set aside the agreement, claiming duress, which the trial court granted without addressing timeliness requirements.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
The core holding is transferable well beyond family law: any settlement agreement 'sheltered within' a final judgment can only be undone through rule 1.540(b), with its enumerated grounds and time constraints, not… — 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.