Shakespeare v. Prince

Shakespeare v. Prince, 129 So.3d 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)

This opinion deals with the entry of a judgment for monetary damages on two counts: (1) breach of an antenuptial agreement, and (2) tortious interference with an expectancy.  The Court held that neither count was supported by record evidence based on the following facts:

The decedent and her husband entered into an antenuptial agreement when they married in order to maintain their assets separately.  When they purchased a home, they used a portion of the decedent's premarital assets, and the home was transferred into her individual name.  When she created her revocable trust, her husband waived his homestead rights and the home was transferred into the trust.  Years later, the husband prepared a quit claim deed transferring the house from the trust to the couple as tenants by the entireties, and the wife executed the deed.  The decedent's son alleged that his mother did not understand the deed when she signed it, and that it was her intent for the husband to have a life estate in the home and for him to receive the remainder.

The probate court reformed the dead and that reformation was upheld.  However, the probate court also awarded damages to the estate for breach of the antenuptial agreement and to the son for tortious interference with an expectancy.  The Court held that neither award for damages was supported by evidence in the record, primarily because the son failed to introduce evidence showing the difference between the value of the life estate in the home and the value of the future interest.  It also found that the damages to the estate for breach of the antenuptial agreement were completely inappropriate since the home was an asset of the decedent's trust and not her estate.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Goodstein v. Goodstein

Goodstein v. Goodstein ,  263 So.3d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) I started this blog in 2013, and this is the first time I have the opportunity to write about a case that I am actually involved in. This case involves a long-running dispute between the father of the decedent, the personal representative of the estate, and the decedent's children, the beneficiaries of the estate (the personal representative's grandchildren). The personal representative appealed a decision by the trial court which required all estate assets to be placed in a restricted depository. Restricted depositories have been common-place in Miami-Dade County for quite some time. Recently, South Palm Beach County has instituted as similar requirement. As a matter of course, all estates opened since the introduction of this policy have been required to place all assets in a restricted depository and assets may only be withdrawn with a court order. Here, the beneficiaries had concerns about their actions a...
Read more

Malleiro v. Mori, Mori and Corallo

Malleiro v. Mori , 182 So.3d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) This case serves as a lesson in rarely used words buried in the Florida Probate Code.  The Court was asked to determine whether an unsigned notarial will executed in Argentina was a valid will under the Florida Probate Code.  The Court ultimately held that because the Argentine will was unsigned, even though it was a notarial will, it was a noncupative will prohibited by the Florida Probate Code. The testator executed a valid will in New York distributing her real and personal property located in the United States.  Four months later, she executed a second will in Argentina.  The Argentine will was not executed with the usual formalities of American wills.  Instead, the testator orally pronounced her testamentary wishes to a notary who transcribed them in the presence of three witnesses.  The testator orally approved the typewritten will in the presence of the witnesses, and the notary signed and st...
Read more

Cantero v. Estate of Caswell

Cantero v. Estate of Caswell , --- So.3d --- (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) This decision involves an appeal of a trial court's order striking a claim as untimely. The claimant argued that his claim was timely because he was a reasonably ascertainable creditor who was not served with notice. The Court disagreed. The claimant argued that the estate should have known about his claim based on several conversations he had with the personal representative and the personal representative's attorneys. He was claiming an ownership interest in the decedent's real property because he paid for the property and paid the mortgage premiums over 20 years prior to the decedent's death for a 5 year period of time while he has in a relationship with the decedent. In his calls to the personal representative, the claimant apparently only mentioned that he had left some car parts in the garage and never said anything about an ownership interest in the property. He argued that he inquired, ...
Read more