We will not usurp the trial court's fact-finding function.Paroly v. Paroly, 876 A.2d 1061, 1063 (Pa. Super. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Wife asserts that the trial court committed an error of law in holding that the MSA could only be invalidated by proving both a lack of full and fair disclosure and fraud or misrepresentation.
The court directs Defendant's attention to Pennsylvania case law providing that, where the circumstances indicate that a spouse has knowledge of the general value of the couple's assets, a marital settlement agreement will be upheld, especially where the agreement recites that full and fair disclosure was made. See, e.g., Paroly v. Paroly, 876 A.2d 1061, 1066 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005). The Becky Pegg Affidavit directly relates to whether Darlene was familiar with the couple's assets.
"We are not permitted to review the reasonableness of a marital settlement agreement to determine its validity." Paroly v. Paroly , 876 A.2d 1061, 1065 (Pa. Super. 2005). Generally, a trial court has "neither the power nor the authority to modify or vary the decree unless there is conclusive proof of fraud or mistake."
"Under Simeone, we are not permitted to review the reasonableness of a marital settlement agreement to determine its validity." Paroly v. Paroly, 876 A.2d 1061, 1065 (Pa. Super. 2005) (citing Simeone, 581 A.2d at 165). "[Simeone] abolished prior, paternalistic approaches to enforcing such agreements and announced, 'Absent fraud, misrepresentation, or duress, spouses should be bound by the terms of their agreements.'"
Thus, the determination of whether the Connelly Attorneys could have presented evidence to defend the validity of the property settlement agreement will be based on the jury's acceptance or rejection of the testimony proffered by certain witnesses. See Paroly v. Paroly, 876 A.2d 1061, 1066 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) ("[T]he case law provides that where the circumstances indicate that a spouse has knowledge of the general value of the couple's assets, an agreement will be upheld."). This is not a case that hinges on the application of legal principles that are properly reserved for the court, and factual determinations remain the province of a jury.
"An abuse of discretion is not lightly found, as it requires clear and convincing evidence that the trial court misapplied the law or failed to follow proper legal procedures." Paroly v. Paroly, 876 A.2d 1061, 1063 (Pa.Super. 2005) (citation omitted).
"An abuse of discretion is not lightly found, as it requires clear and convincing evidence that the trial court misapplied the law or failed to follow proper legal procedures." Paroly v. Paroly, 876 A.2d 1061, 1063 (Pa.Super 2005) (citation omitted). "Absent fraud, misrepresentation, or duress, spouses should be bound by the terms of their agreements."
. Paroly v. Paroly, 876 A.2d 1061, 1063 (Pa. Super. 2005). When the words of a prenuptial agreement are clear and unambiguous, we must ascertain the parties' intent based on the express language of the agreement.
Paroly v. Paroly, 876 A.2d 1061, 1063 (Pa.Super. 2005) (citations and quotation marks omitted). See Lewis v. Lewis, 234 A.3d 706 (Pa.Super. 2020) (noting settlement agreements are subject to contract principles).
Florence also avers that, prior to signing the agreement, she never received the legally required financial disclosures from Donald. See Paroly v. Paroly, 876 A.2d 1061, 1067 (Pa. Super. 2005) ("[W]here the circumstances indicate that a spouse has knowledge of the general value of the couple's assets, an agreement will be upheld, especially where … the agreement recites that a fully and fair disclosure was made."). Stated differently, Florence submits that "[t]he record here is devoid of circumstances indicating that [she] had knowledge of the general value of the couple's assets." Appellant's Brief, at 22 (identifying Florence's lack of knowledge as to Donald's stock and individual retirement account holdings at the point when the agreement was signed).