Judge Ayers said she was "not ruling on" the two marital agreements because "it's not in front of me," declared them "in full force and effect" in the same sentence, and used them to shut off Husband's discovery and his Chase bank subpoenas.
Under Casto v. Casto, once the terms of the October 2023 separation agreement are shown unreasonable, the burden falls on the spouse defending it, and testing the terms takes the financial records. An order that declines to decide whether the agreements are valid cannot use them to shut off discovery. Wife's own petition says the October 2023 agreement "did not include financial disclosures."
- Dec. 19, 2024: Judge Ayers: "So at this juncture I'm not ruling on them with respect to anything because it's not in front of me, but as far as I'm concerned they're both in full force and effect and that would limit your discovery requests, Mr. Hanson." Then: "I've sustained it actually. So that discovery is not going to be produced." And: "So it stays in full force and effect unless you file something otherwise." N-018Read them: Hearing transcript, Dec. 19, 2024, pp. 4-7 (link pending redacted copy)
- Dec. 30, 2024: the written order, prepared by Davis at chambers' direction, sustained Wife's objection "as the Parties entered into the Premarital Agreement and the Marital Separation Agreement" and ordered that the subpoenas to JP Morgan Chase Bank and Chase Bank "shall not be issued." Paragraph 3: "At this juncture, the Court is not issuing a ruling with respect to the validity of either agreement". N-018, N-007Read them: Order, Doc 093, Dec. 30, 2024 (link pending redacted copy) · Chambers email, Dec. 16, 2024 (Doc 091, p. 14) (link pending redacted copy)
- Feb. 28, 2025 to Aug. 17, 2026: Husband filed the motion to set aside the agreement. April 22, 2025, Judge Ayers described her ruling: "the only substantive ruling that I've made is you can't get your discovery because we've got the two agreements." As of Aug. 17, 2026, 535 days after filing, no judge had ruled on it. N-019, N-033On what finding do two agreements that no court has adjudicated keep Wife's financial records out of this case?Read them: Hearing transcript, Apr. 22, 2025, p. 29 (link pending redacted copy)
Judge Kelly A. Ayers (the bench ruling; the Dec. 30 order; the April 22 description). Scott Davis, Wife's counsel (prepared the order on chambers' instruction). One objection, one ruling, one order. Every duty here arises from Casto and due process on this objection alone; no other card is needed to establish it.
Art. I, ss. 9 and 21, Fla. Const. guarantee due process and courts open to every claim. Under Casto v. Casto, 508 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1987), when the terms of a marital separation agreement such as the October 2023 agreement are unreasonable for one spouse, a presumption of concealment or lack of knowledge arises, and the burden shifts to the spouse defending it.
The details are where it lives: full record, receipts, related cards
The written ruling chambers had promised for December 16, 2024 never issued. The email said instead,
"At this juncture, the Court is not issuing a ruling." What filled the sixty-three days from hearing
to order was a memorandum Davis filed six days late, over an objection the court never ruled on
(N-007).
At the December 19 hearing Judge Ayers said: "nobody has asked me to do anything with the premarital
agreement or separation agreement. So at this juncture I'm not ruling on them with respect to
anything because it's not in front of me, but as far as I'm concerned they're both in full force and
effect and that would limit your discovery requests, Mr. Hanson." On the discovery objection she
ruled: "I've sustained it actually. So that discovery is not going to be produced." Four months later
she described the same ruling in her own words: "the only substantive ruling that I've made is you
can't get your discovery because we've got the two agreements."
On December 30 she e-signed the order sustaining Wife's amended objection and killing the Chase
non-party subpoenas. Paragraph 3 of that order declined to rule on whether either agreement is valid,
because the issue "has not been challenged by either Party or properly brought before the Court."
The effect ran both directions. Husband got no bank records, and the records Wife had not produced
stayed unproduced (N-006). Wife also owed no reciprocal discovery on the agreements that shut the
subpoenas off. The court had named the missing step at the hearing, saying the agreements stand
"unless you file something otherwise." Husband filed exactly that. No judge has ruled on it since
(N-019, N-033). [DENIED: the discovery was cut off on the strength of agreements the same ruling
refused to adjudicate]
Under Casto, an agreement whose terms are unreasonable for one spouse raises a presumption of concealment or lack of knowledge, and the burden shifts to the spouse defending it; testing the terms takes the financial records. Wife's own petition concedes the disclosure Casto asks the defending spouse to show: no financial disclosures accompanied the October 2023 agreement. A subpoena is how a party gets records the other side will not hand over, and killing one takes a stated ground. The ground stated here was the agreements themselves.
the court said it was not ruling on the two marital agreements because nobody had asked it to, and in the same breath used those agreements to shut off the discovery that would test them.
- Doc 090, transcript of the December 19, 2024 hearing, Tr. 4:3-11, 6:5-8, and 7:14-16 for the quoted rulings; Tr. 12:14-25 (the "Nope." exchange at 12:22-24), 13:2-5, 13:9-10, and 13:25-14:2 ("It's killing me to watch what it's doing to them").
- Doc 091 Ex. A p. 14, the Heyward email of 12/16/24 9:30 AM. Its sentence opens "At this juncture, the Court is not issuing a ruling," and that opener travels with any use of the quote.
- Doc 192, transcript of the April 22, 2025 hearing, Tr. 29:6-9, the judge's own later description of the same ruling.
- Doc 093, "Order Sustaining Wife's Amended Objection," e-signed by Judge Ayers 12/30/2024 4:03:22 PM. Decretal para. 2 names DIN 28 and 29 only. Para. 3 declines to rule on validity, quoted above. Doc 102's notice corroborates the 12/30 order date.
- Doc 158, transcript of the December 13, 2024 hearing, Tr. 10 and 19.
- Doc 203 para. 5, no financial disclosures with the October 2023 agreement. The record's own name for that instrument is the Marital Separation Agreement dated 10/8/23; "postmarital" and "post-marital" are aliases; Judge Ayers says "postnuptial" on the record and quoted material stays verbatim.
- Doc 090 Tr. 7:19-20 for the counsel-relayed refusal to void, "He said no. She's not willing to do it," Doc 205, Wife's deposition of April 2, 2025, Tr. 132:21 for the sworn refusal and Tr. 133:6-8 for the figures as Wife stated them.
- Doc 146 para. 107 for the affidavit arithmetic, citing Docs 34 and 43: Wife's disclosed assets over liabilities at $104,611 against Husband's in excess of $800,000. The $104,611 is her disclosed net worth; the $100,000 is the payment she received under the agreement. Two different figures, and they should not be read as one.
- Doc 181 (4/23/25) para. 2, bolded, on the reissued subpoenas. The second set did not exist for another sixty days (N-034).
- Docs 127 and 129 for the challenge-chain dispositions (N-028). A template artifact appears at p. 2 of the challenge chain, an unfilled "[Wife's Name]" writ-of-bodily-attachment block.
- Division check: every Ayers-era transcript cover and Doc 054 read "Division D"; Division A is the post-reassignment designation.