In Casto v. Casto, 508 So. 2d 330 (Fla. 1987), the Court confirmed that even unreasonable nuptial agreements regarding post-dissolution property and support, if freely executed, are enforceable. Id. at 334. In that case, the Court explained the circumstances that would justify invalidating a nuptial agreement. The Court stated that there were two ways an otherwise enforceable nuptial agreement may be held invalid. Id. at 333. First, the agreement may be set aside or modified by a court if it was "reached under fraud, deceit, duress, coercion, misrepresentation, or overreaching." Id. Second, if the agreement is "unfair or unreasonable . . . given the circumstances of the parties," and the trial court finds the agreement "disproportionate to the means of the defending spouse," then the rebuttable presumption is that "there was either concealment by the defending spouse or a . . . lack of knowledge by the challenging spouse of the defending spouse's finances at the time the agreement was reached." Id. Further, incompetence of counsel is not a ground to set aside a valid nuptial agreement. Id. at 334.