Full Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed November 5, 2026. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D25-2366 Lower Tribunal No. 23-4226-FC-04 ________________ Cesar Ortega, Appellant, vs. Grisell Verania Sotolongo, Appellee. An Appeal from a non-final order from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Angélica D. Zayas, Judge. Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP, and Robin Bresky, and Jonathan Mann (Boca Raton), for appellant. Kevin Coyle Colbert, for appellee. Before FERNANDEZ, GOODEN and REBULL, JJ. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 133 So. 3d 1008, 1010, 1012 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014), approved, 174 So. 3d 983 (Fla. 2015) (“A trial court's decision to uphold an antenuptial agreement must be supported by competent, substantial evidence. . . [the] trial court’s interpretation of a prenuptial agreement [however] is reviewed de novo.”); Crupi v. Crupi, 784 So. 2d 611, 612 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001) (“There are two separate grounds for invalidating pre/post-nuptial agreements. The first deals with fraud, duress, coercion, misrepresentation or overreaching. The second is unfairness.” (citation modified)); Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So. 2d 7, 9 (Fla. 1972) (“[T]here is a vast difference between a contract made in the market place and one relating to the institution of marriage.”); see generally Hjortaas v. McCabe, 656 So. 2d 168, 170-71 (Fla. 2d DCA 1995) (a lump sum payment and some knowledge of the defending spouse’s wealth, without the “financial sophistication” to understand that wealth, is not enough to survive a challenge to the prenuptial agreement); Baker v. Baker, 394 So. 2d 465, 468 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981) (The “fact that [the challenging spouse] was unrepresented by counsel, only underscores the necessity for full compliance with the fiduciary responsibilities inherent in the marital relationship.”). 2