Gordon v. Fishman

Gordon v. Fishman, 253 So.3d 1218 (Fla. 2d DCA 2018)

Under current Florida law, the provisions of a decedent's will that impact the former spouse of that person become void upon divorce. But what happens when the decedent's will is prepared before the marriage (which ultimately ended in divorce)?  Here, the Court found that the language of F.S. 732.507(2) unambiguously requires that the person be married at the time of executing the will. Thus, a will executed before the marriage, leaving assets to the decedent's then-fiance, who he subsequently married and then divorced, are not subject to F.S. 732.507(2). 

F.S. 732.507(2) reads as follows:

Any provision of a will executed by a married person that affects the spouse of that person shall become void upon the divorce of that person or upon the dissolution or annulment of the marriage. After the dissolution, divorce, or annulment, the will shall be administered and construed as if the former spouse had died at the time of the dissolution, divorce, or annulment of the marriage, unless the will or the dissolution or divorce judgment expressly provides otherwise. (Emphasis added)
The Court held that the language of F.S. 732.507(2) is unambiguous in that it only governs wills executed by a married testator. It was not persuaded by the argument that allowing the former spouse to take, simply because the decedent was not married when he wrote his will, would be an unreasonable disregard of legislative intent. 

Comments

  1. Get Divorce PapersSeptember 3, 2021 at 10:03 PM

    All information you included on your blog that's really commendable. All things are very useful divorce in utah. I hope you keep sharing your knowledgeable information with all of us.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Weiser Law FirmDecember 10, 2021 at 7:05 AM

    You wrote this post very carefully.New Orleans criminal lawyer The amount of information is stunning and also a gainful article for us. Keep sharing this kind of articles, Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  3. aaronnssdJanuary 4, 2022 at 2:06 PM

    I read the above article and I got some different kind of information from your article about a mattress. It is a helpful article to enhance our knowledge for us. Thankful to you for sharing an article like this.divorce attorney beaufort sc

    ReplyDelete
  4. calvin harrisFebruary 10, 2022 at 7:04 AM

    Thank you for sharing with us such a great blog. I would like to share my experience with you as well. Real Estate services Greensburg

    ReplyDelete
  5. pawnidahoMarch 10, 2022 at 3:16 PM

    You have given great content here.Divorce Lawyer Chalmette I am glad to discover this post as I found lots of valuable data in your article. Thanks for sharing an article like this.

    ReplyDelete
  6. EATON FAMILY LAW GROUPMay 2, 2022 at 9:59 PM

    The article you've shared here is fantastic because it provides a wealth of information that will be incredibly beneficial to me. Thank you for sharing about Child custody lawyer Houston Continue to post.

    ReplyDelete
  7. EATON FAMILY LAW GROUPJune 13, 2022 at 12:43 AM

    This article provided me with a lot of useful information. The material you presented during this post provided me with some excellent information. Continue to post. child support attorney houston tx

    ReplyDelete

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 stamped the will.  The testator
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, &quo
Read more