Northern Trust Co. v. Shaw

The Northern Trust Co. v. Shaw, --- So.3d --- (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)

This decision deals with an interpretation of a surviving spouse's rights under a prenuptial agreement.  While the spouse argued that she was entitled to both $500,000 under the agreement and other assets left to her by the decedent, the personal representative felt that she was only entitled to the $500,000, and the other assets left to her by the decedent should be taken into account in satisfying that amount. The Court, relying on North Carolina contract law, ultimately felt that the personal representative's interpretation was correct.

The prenuptial agreement at issue stated that the wife would receive from the husband the sum of $500,000 from his estate.  It defined "estate" as his probate estate, any living trust created by him, as well as life insurance, individual retirement accounts, qualified and nonqualified deferred compensation plans and other assets that may pass by beneficiary designation outside of the will or trust documents.  When the decedent died, the wife received a $480,000 IRA distribution as well as tangible personal property valued at $103,996.  

The wife felt that because the agreement also stated that the decedent had a continuing opportunity to make testamentary gifts and IRA distributions to the wife as he desired, the agreement should be interpreted to allow her to receive both the $500,000 distribution and these other gifts from the decedent.  The Court disagreed, and held that the agreement does not provide her with an additional $500,000 payment when she has already received at least $500,000 in assets from the 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