Florida Probate & Trust Litigation Blog : Florida Probate Litigation, Will Contest Lawyer & Attorney : Juan C. Antúnez : Serving Miami, Jacksonville, Tampa Saint Petersburg, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale

Hall v. Maal, --- So.3d ----, 2010 WL 1212794 (Fla. 1st DCA March 30, 2010)

Just because someone says they were married to the decedent, doesn't make it so. In contested probate proceedings you simply can't take this fact for granted; the economic implications are too big. A surviving spouse has [1] the right to homestead property (at least a life estate in the decedent's homestead residence), [2] a right to an elective share (30% of the decedent's augmented elective estate), [3] a right to take as a pretermitted spouse (up to 100% of the estate under Florida's laws of intestacy), [4] a right to a family allowance, [5] a right to exempt property, and [6] priority in preference in selecting a personal representative. In addition, as I recently wrote here, Florida courts have long held that a presumption of undue influence in a will contest "cannot arise in the case of a husband and wife" because the requirement of active procurement would almost always be present.

So how do you "test" the validity of a marriage?

The 1st DCA made clear in the linked-to case above that determining if a couple "acted" married is NOT the way to test a marriage's legal validity. In this case the couple had a formal wedding ceremony, lived together, had children together, walked around telling anyone who would listen they were man and wife, executed a mortgage as husband and wife, and in all other respects "acted married," but they never got around to getting a marriage license. So were they "legally" married? NO says the 1st DCA. Why? Because 741.211, Florida Statutes (2002) says common-law marriages aren't valid in Florida. So if you don't have a marriage license, you're not married.

Acting Married

If there were ever two people who acted married, it was the couple in this case:

Ms. Hall and Dr. Maal were engaged to be married on March 2, 2002, at Old Christ Church in Pensacola. Leading up to their wedding date, they went through many of the familiar activities of those who intend to marry. They arranged for the church, engaged a minister, sent out invitations, arranged for flowers and a photographer, and attended pre-marital counseling. They attended at least two wedding showers. And, as some couples do, they started to work out a pre-nuptial agreement.

The week before the wedding, the couple was scheduled to go to the office of the county court clerk to get a marriage license. However, on that day, Dr. Maal called Ms. Hall at work and told her that they were not going to be able to get a marriage license because they had not agreed on the pre-nuptial agreement. Ms. Hall was understandably upset by this-all of the arrangements had been made and many of the guests were already in Pensacola for the ceremony. Dr. Maal persuaded her to go ahead with the ceremony, reassuring her that “everything will be alright.” On March 2, 2002, Dr. Maal and Ms. Hall participated in a full wedding ceremony performed by a minister at the church with numerous family members and friends present, complete with attendants, music, and flowers, and followed by a very nice reception. They did this knowing that they had not ever applied for nor received a marriage license.

In the years following the 2002 ceremony, two children were born of the relationship, Dr. Maal referred to Ms. Hall as his “wife,” and she referred to him as her “husband.” The mortgage on the parties' home referred to them as “husband and wife.” Ms. Hall was referred to as “Mrs. Maal” in her workplace, although she had not legally changed her name. The parties continued to file separate tax returns.

A year after the “marriage” ceremony, the parties appeared before the clerk of the court and applied for and received a marriage license. However, the license was neither solemnized nor returned to the clerk of the court to be made part of the official records of the county.

No Marriage License = You're NOT Married

These two may have walked, talked and looked married . . . but they weren't. As explained by the 1st DCA, in the absence of a marriage license validly "solemnized" in accordance with Florida law: you're NOT legally married.

Since 1967, when the Florida legislature abolished common law marriage, there has been only one method of producing a legally cognizable marriage in Florida. See generally §§ 741.01-.212, Fla. Stat. (2002). Persons desiring to be married are required to apply for a marriage license which can be issued by a county court judge or the clerk of the circuit court. See § 741.01, Fla. Stat. (2002). After issuance, a license is valid for 60 days within which time the marriage must be solemnized. See § 741.041, Fla. Stat. (2002). Marriage may be solemnized by ordained clergy, judges, clerks of court, or notaries public. See § 741.07, Fla. Stat. (2002). After solemnization, the officiant shall certify on the license that the marriage has been performed and deliver it, within 10 days, to the clerk or judge that issued it. See § 741.08, Fla. Stat. (2002). The county court judge and the clerk of the circuit court are required to keep a correct record of all licenses issued and of the licenses returned as certified by the officiant. See § 741.09, Fla. Stat. (2002). There are also provisions for proving up a marriage when the certificate is not completed on the marriage license, when the certified license is lost or when death or other cause prevents a certificate from being made. See § 741.10, Fla. Stat. (2002).

*     *     *     *     *

The parties were not in substantial compliance with Chapter 741. Whether substantial compliance exists is a fact-based inquiry. However, in order for there to be substantial compliance, there has to be some compliance. Some compliance would, at a minimum, entail the parties applying for and receiving a license.

*     *     *     *     *

To the extent that the dissent would hold that a marriage ceremony without a license, coupled with living together and “acting married,” results in a valid marriage, it would recreate a species of common-law marriage in violation of section 741.211, Florida Statutes (2002).

Hat tip to Eric Virgil

Coral Gables probate litigator extraordinaire Eric Virgil recently posted a summary of this case on the list service for the RPPTL section of the Dade County Bar Association. That's how I became aware of it. Thanks Eric.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Boulis v. Blackburn, --- So.3d ----, 2009 WL 2382358 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug 05, 2009)

The decedent at the heart of this probate battle, Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, was a Greek immigrant and self-made millionaire who had started as a dishwasher in Canada and ended up in Florida, where he built an empire of restaurants, hotels and cruise ships used for offshore casino gambling. His 2001 gangland-style murder was allegedly linked to the $147.5 million sale of his company, SunCruz Casinos, to a partnership including disgraced Republican über lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Apparently Boulis wasn't very fond of his wife: he completely cut her out of his estate. Lucky for her Boulis died a Florida resident, so she was able to claim a 30% share of his estate under F.S. § 732.201. That's the good news. The bad news is that she may have to fork over close to half of her share in estate taxes.

The Elephant in the Room: Estate Tax Allocation:

In large estates the elephant in the room is always: "who's going to pay the estate tax?" Considering that the top marginal estate tax rate is 45%, whose share of the estate gets used to pay this tax bill is a huge big deal. For example, if Boulis's widow was awarded a $10 million elective share, how the estate-tax allocation question is answered could mean the difference between her walking away with $10 million or $6.5 million!

Usually zero estate taxes are allocated to a widow's elective share because of the unlimited estate-tax marital deduction. However, Boulis's widow wasn't a U.S. citizen, so the normal rules don't apply. But even for non-citizens, it's pretty easy to avoid paying any estate tax by creating a qualified domestic trust or "QDOT" to hold the widow's share of the estate. For reasons not explained by the 4th DCA, this hasn't happened in this case.

Having failed to dodge the estate-tax bullet by relying on the federal tax code provisions governing QDOTs, Boulis's widow fell back on two state-level statutory-construction arguments involving F.S. 733.817, Florida's estate-tax allocation statute.

[1]  Is an elective share ever liable for estate taxes?

Because elective-share assets going to a surviving spouse almost never trigger any estate tax, F.S. 733.817 doesn't have a specific clause addressing those rare instances where a tax is triggered. Boulis's widow argued this omission means taxes are NEVER allocated to elective share assets. Wrong answer says the 4th DCA, here's why:

Appellant argues that certain probate code sections relieve her elective share of any liability for estate taxes. Section 733.817, Florida Statutes (2000), governs the apportionment of estate taxes. Subsections (5)(a), (5)(b), and (5)(c) apply to the apportionment of taxes on property passing under the decedent's will, property passing under the terms of any trust created in the decedent's will and homestead property, respectively.

*     *     *

“The purpose of section 733.817 is to ensure that all estate and inheritance taxes are shared on a ratable basis by the beneficiaries receiving the property subject to those taxes.” Tarbox v. Palmer, 564 So.2d 1106, 1108 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990). As appellant is not entitled to the marital deduction on her elective share, then that elective share is subject to tax. The net tax on an elective share is not apportioned under paragraphs (5)(a), (5)(b), or (5)(c), and it is not otherwise excluded. Therefore, the net tax attributable to the elective share is apportionable under section 733.817(5)(f).

[2]  But what if the decedent waived the normal tax allocations rules?

Boulis's widow then argued that even if her share of the estate was taxable, her husband's will trumped application of the Florida tax allocation statute because it directed that the payment of taxes attributable to property NOT passing under his will (such as her elective share) must be paid from property passing under his will (read: tax everyone else but the widow). This allocation argument has a long and storied past here in Florida. Unfortunately for Boulis's widow, by now it's pretty well settled that the language in the will has to be extremely specific for this argument to work. In this case it wasn't, so she lost this argument as well.

In his will, the decedent “direct[s][his] Personal Representative to pay out of the property which would otherwise become a part of the Residuary Estate, all estate, inheritance, transfer and succession taxes, including interest and penalties thereon, which may be lawfully assessed by reason of my death.” Appellant argues that pursuant to section 733.817(5)(h)1., Florida Statutes (2000), this provision of the will directs appellees to pay the taxes on the elective share out of the residuary estate. The trial court held that section 733.817(5)(h)4., Florida Statutes, is the applicable provision and, under that section, the decedent has not effectively directed the payment of taxes attributable to property not passing under the governing instrument from property passing under the governing instrument.

Section 733.817(5)(h), Florida Statutes, provides in pertinent part:

(h)1. To be effective as a direction for payment of tax in a manner different from that provided in this section, the governing instrument must direct that the tax be paid from assets that pass pursuant to that governing instrument, except as provided in this section.

*     *     *

4. For a direction in a governing instrument to be effective to direct payment of taxes attributable to property not passing under the governing instrument from property passing under the governing instrument, the governing instrument must expressly refer to this section, or expressly indicate that the property passing under the governing instrument is to bear the burden of taxation for property not passing under the governing instrument. A direction in the governing instrument to the effect that all taxes are to be paid from property passing under the governing instrument whether attributable to property passing under the governing instrument or otherwise shall be effective to direct the payment from property passing under the governing instrument of taxes attributable to property not passing under the governing instrument.

In In re Estate of McClaran, 811 So.2d 799 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002), the Second District addressed the issue of whether the direction in the decedent's will was effective under section 733.817(5)(h) to override the statutory method of apportionment of estate taxes. McClaran's will provided in pertinent part:

My personal representative shall pay from the residue of my estate ... estate and inheritance taxes assessed by reason of my death, except that the amount, if any, by which the estate and inheritance taxes shall be increased as a result of the inclusion of property in which I may have a qualifying income interest for life or over which I may have a power of appointment shall be paid by the person holding or receiving that property.

Id. at 800 (emphasis in original).

*     *     *

Just as in McClaran, the direction in the decedent's will does not include an express indication that the property passing under the will is to bear the burden of taxation for property not passing under the will.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

In re Estate of Magee, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 2781131 (Fla. 2d DCA Sep 26, 2007)

When all else fails, one way to win a probate dispute is to challenge the portion of the probate code at issue on constitutional grounds.  A successful example of this approach was the Florida Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Shriners Hospital for Crippled Children v. Zrillic, 563 So.2d 64 (Fla.1990), where the court struck down Florida's mortmain statute, then codified at section 732.803, because it violated article 1, section 2 of the Florida Constitution by impermissibly infringing on the decedent's testamentary rights.

How hard is it to set aside a statute on constitutional grounds? VERY

Courts will bend over backwards to uphold a probate statute being challenged on constitutional grounds.  In Shriners Florida's Supreme Court ruled that the “reasonable relationship” or “rational basis” standard applies to review a statute that potentially infringes on (but does not destroy entirely) property or testamentary rights.  This is the lowest level of scrutiny applied by courts deciding constitutional issues through judicial review. The higher levels are typically referred to as intermediate scrutiny and strict scrutiny.

Is Florida's spousal elective share statute constitutional? YES

In the linked-to case Florida's spousal elective share statutes [click: 732.201 to 732.2155] were challenged on constitutional grounds.  The argument was that Florida law requiring that at least 30% of every married person's estate be set aside for a surviving spouse -- regardless of whether the surviving spouse had any financial need whatsoever -- violated the decedent's constitutionally protected property rights.

Nice try, but no cigar.  The 2d DCA upheld the constitutionality of Florida's elective share statutory scheme under the rational basis test.  The following excerpt from the linked-to opinion sums up the court's reasoning and also provides good guidance for anyone considering a future constitutional challenge to any other portion of Florida's probate code.

Fortunately, the Florida Supreme Court has recently clarified that the test to be applied in evaluating statutes and regulations that infringe on property rights or testamentary rights-at least those that do not require the absolute destruction of property-is not the “least restrictive means” test urged by Judith here, but rather a “reasonable relationship” test. In Haire v. Florida Department of Agriculture & Consumer Services, 870 So.2d 774, 783 (Fla.2004), the court explained,

[W]e have held that “[a]ll ... property rights are held subject to the fair exercise of the [police] power,” Golden v. McCarty, 337 So.2d 388, 390 (Fla.1976) (emphasis supplied), and have used the reasonable relationship test ... to evaluate statutes and regulations that infringe on property rights.

Id. (footnotes omitted).

As support for this proposition, the court expressly cited Zrillic. Haire, 870 So.2d 783 n. 9. In reconciling the cases, therefore, the Florida Supreme Court has now established that the “reasonable relationship” or “rational basis” standard applies to review a statute that potentially infringes on (but does not destroy entirely) property or testamentary rights.

As further explained in Haire,

Under this standard of review ... a “state statute must be upheld ... if there is any reasonable relationship between the act and the furtherance of a valid governmental objective.” Lane v. Chiles, 698 So.2d 260, 262 (Fla.1997) (emphasis supplied). Specifically, with respect to substantive due process, a statute is valid if it “bears a rational relation to a legitimate legislative purpose in safeguarding the public health, safety, or general welfare and is not discriminatory, arbitrary, or oppressive.” Chicago Title Ins. Co. v. Butler, 770 So.2d 1210, 1215 (Fla.2000).

870 So.2d at 782.

As noted above and acknowledged by Judith, this state has a “strong public policy concerning the protection of the surviving spouse of [a] marriage in existence at the time of the decedent's death.” See Via, 656 So.2d at 461. The provisions of the elective share statute thus serve a legitimate legislative purpose. The statutes are rationally related to that purpose in that they seek to provide any surviving spouse who has not waived such protections a minority share in the assets of the decedent in the event that spouse did not receive as much through testamentary dispositions. [FN3] This legislative scheme has strong historical roots in the common law, in existence before the enactment of our state constitution and undisturbed until now.

We therefore affirm the order on appeal.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Marlowe v. Brown, 944 So.2d 1036 (Fla. 4th DCA Aug 02, 2006)

Being an effective probate litigator often requires lateral thinking -- the generation of novel solutions to problems using other than straightforward, step-by-step logic. The point of lateral thinking is that many problems require a different perspective to solve successfully.

The linked-to case is a perfect example. In this case a couple was in the midst of a very contentious divorce proceeding.  After they signed a non-final mediation agreement, but before a final judgment of divorce was entered, husband died. Shortly thereafter, wife died.  Presto! . . . we're in probate litigation land.

Why fight over a 50% divorce mediation agreement when you can get 100% in probate?

Before husband died, the parties had been contesting the meaning of their divorce mediation agreement, which contemplated a 50/50 split of the couple's assets.  Rather than continue this litigation in a linear fashion within the probate context, wife's PR came at the problem from a completely different perspective: why argue over 50/50 when wife, as a surviving spouse, gets 100% of all jointly titled assets?

In September, 2003, the wife moved the probate court to declare certain assets to be hers. Among these assets were the Greenbrier Farm, the Naked Lady Ranch, and “Hatteras Lots;” the dissolution judge's January 21 order had found that the husband and wife owned these properties as tenants by the entirety. The wife argued that these lots passed to her by operation of law when her husband died. The wife made similar arguments as to other properties based on the way the properties were titled at the time of the husband's death. For example, the wife argued that 103,114.299 troy ounces of silver passed to her under the provisions of a storage contract which declared that the account was a joint tenancy with right of survivorship.

Wife lost this argument at the trial court level . . . but won where it counts: on appeal.  The 4th DCA ruled that first, in the absence of a final judgment, there was no divorce; and second, as surviving spouse she gets 100% of the joint property.  Here's how the 4th DCA summed up its thinking:

The dissolution of marriage action terminated with the death of the husband and the . . . judge should have dismissed the case upon the wife's motion.

.     .     .     .     .

In Price v. Price, 114 Fla. 233, 153 So. 904, 905 (1934), the supreme court described the effect of an appellate reversal of a divorce decree, where one spouse dies after the issuance of the decree, but while the appeal is pending:

[O]n such reversal, the parties will be placed in the position they occupied before the decree was entered, and if one of them has died between the date of the decree of divorce and its reversal, the survivor procuring the reversal will be entitled to all rights of succession or the like, in the estate of the other, the same as if no divorce has ever been had.

Similarly, the husband's death in this case left the wife in the legal position of one whose marriage was terminated by death, and not by a final judgment.

Yes, lateral thinking wins the day again. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Trenchard v. Gray, --- So.2d ----, 2007 WL 837294 (Fla. 2d DCA Mar 21, 2007)

In Dempsey v. Dempsey (a 2005 opinion I wrote about here) the 2d DCA ruled on when elective share orders are subject to appeal.  Under Florida Probate Rule 5.360, determining the elective share is a two-step process:

• First, the trial court must rule on the issue of entitlement (Rule 5.360(c)).
• Second, if the trial court finds entitlement, then it must determine the amount of the elective share, the assets to be distributed to satisfy the elective share, and, if contribution is necessary, the amount of contribution for which each recipient is liable (Rule 5.360(d)). 

Step one is a non-final, non-appealable order.  Step two is an appealable order.


Based on the same rationale, the 2d DCA dismissed an appeal of a step-one elective share order in the linked-to opinion.  The following excerpt from Judge Silberman's concurring opinion does a good job of explaining - again - the 2d DCA's approach to elective-share-order appeals:

Appellant Vicki Trenchard raises an issue regarding whether certain real property to which she claims ownership is subject to Appellee Marcia Gray's claim to an elective share. Ms. Trenchard and William Gray, the decedent, owned the property as joint tenants with the right of survivorship. The trial court's order finds that the decedent's interest in the real property is subject to the elective estate. The order is consistent with the statutory requirement that the value of the decedent's interest in the property must be taken into account to determine the elective estate. See § 732.2035, Fla. Stat. (2005).


The trial court has not determined any questions as to ownership of the property or whether the property itself may be used to satisfy the elective share claim. The court also has not resolved questions as to the amount of the elective share, the identification of assets that will be used to satisfy the elective share, the amount of the unsatisfied balance of the elective share, or the apportionment of the unsatisfied balance among the direct recipients of the remaining elective estate. See §§ 732.2075, 732.2085. Thus, I concur in the decision to dismiss this appeal because the trial court's order is nonfinal and nonappealable. See Dempsey, 899 So.2d 1272.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments

Janien v. Janien, 2006 WL 2956304 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct 18, 2006)

Under Florida law a surviving widow or widower is entitled to at least 30% of the decedent spouse's estate.  If done properly, an "elective share trust" allows a person to satisfy his or her surviving spouse's elective share rights, while still retaining the right to say what happens to the elective-share assets when the surviving spouse dies.   This planning device  can be especially useful  where a person wants to provide for a second  wife or husband, but make sure the family assets go back to his or her children when the surviving spouse dies.

The issue in this case was whether the following clause created an elective share trust within the meaning of F.S. 732.2025(2).  The drafting attorney who prepared this instrument testified that at the time he did the drafting he'd never heard of an elective share trust.  So the question was did the decedent "accidentally" get it right?

ARTICLE SECOND: If my husband, Cedric Janien, survives me:

A. I devise and bequeath my beneficial interest in the North Chatham Realty Trust, together with all furniture, fixtures, antiques and other items of personal property in said residence, to my Trustee, with the right in my husband to exclusively live in and occupy such residence for the period of his life, and provided that he is financially able to do so, he shall be responsible for all maintenance charges and taxes assessed against the residence during his lifetime. If he does not have the financial ability to pay such expenses and taxes, them my Trustee is authorized and is directed to mortgage the premises for the purpose of paying such maintenance charges and taxes.

The trial court ruled this trust did NOT qualify as an elective share trust.  The 4th DCA agreed, providing the following valuable guidance:

First, Article Second (A) fails to satisfy the requirement of section 732.2025(2)(a), because .  .  .  Cedric is entitled neither to the “use” of the property within the meaning of the statute, nor to “income” derived from the property.

**********

Article Second (A) created something less than a life estate in the Massachusetts property.

**********

We also hold that Article Second (A) does not satisfy the requirements of section 732.2025(2)(b). That section requires that the purported elective share trust be “subject to the provisions of former s. 738.12 or the surviving spouse has the right under the terms of the trust or state law to require the trustee either to make the property productive or to convert it within a reasonable time.”

Lesson learned: 

The technical requirements for a valid elective share trust are such that you're probably not going to have a qualifying clause unless the drafting attorney knew what he or she was doing.  By way of contrast, the following is a form of elective share trust that actually works:

Despite any other provision of this Trust Agreement, if my wife or her designated representative elects the Elective Share in my estate, any trust created under this Trust and not qualifying for the federal marital deduction in which my wife is a beneficiary will be divided into two parts, with the least amount of that trust as is needed to satisfy the balance of the Elective Share unpaid by other sources under Section 732.2075 of the Florida Statutes being held as a separate trust (the “Elective Share Trust”) and administered so as to qualify under Section 732.2025 of the Florida Statutes (including the right for my wife to require the Trustee to make the trust property productive or to convert it within a reasonable time). Unless the original trust already provides for a qualifying invasion power or a qualifying power of appointment for my wife, the Personal Representative in its discretion may elect to create an invasion power for the Elective Share Trust for purposes of valuation under Section 732.2095 of the Florida Statutes. If an invasion power is created, the Personal Representative shall designate that such a power is to apply by filing a notice with my wife and in the probate court within 6 months after the election by my wife of the Elective Share.

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)

Who would have thought that "Dear Abby" could teach us something about practicing trusts and estates law in Florida? Read the following exchange (also available here) and ask yourself three questions:

• Assuming the estate planning attorney described below only represented the husband, did the attorney violate his confidentiality obligations under Florida Ethics Rule 4-1.6? Answer: Yes.
• Under Florida Bar Ethics Opinion 95-4, could the estate planning attorney represent both husband and wife in the scenario described below? Answer: No.
• Is this type of behavior great advertising for Florida's homestead protection laws and spousal elective share rights? Answer: Yes!!!

DEAR ABBY: My husband, "Girard," and I have been married two years. We both have children from previous marriages. Girard always told me I would have a home if I outlived him, even though his children will eventually inherit the property.

One day I asked Girard if it was in the will, and he said no, but that he and his children "had discussed it." When I asked him to put it on paper, he agreed. His attorney drafted a document for him to sign. After it had laid around the house for more than a week, Girard told me he had lost it. I reminded him to get another copy, sign and return it. After two more weeks passed with no signed document, Girard told me his attorney was "busy" and "would get to it when he could."

I decided to call the attorney myself. Well, you guessed it. I was told the papers had been executed. When I confronted Girard he admitted he had lied and promised to have the will done over. When I looked at the document he had signed, I saw that Girard was giving me 90 days to get out of the house after his death.

I was upset, so he tore up the document. Am I being unreasonable? I am 76, and he is 84. -- DOESN'T WANT TO BE HOMELESS IN BATON ROUGE

DEAR DOESN'T: It's not unreasonable to want a roof over your head should your husband predecease you. Thank heavens you found out now what was planned for you, rather than being hit with it while you were helpless and grieving. Now that you know how your husband thinks, consult an attorney of your own and find out exactly what your rights are as a wife in the state of Louisiana. The law can vary from state to state, and it is extremely important that you know what you are entitled to.

Source: Wills, Trusts & Estates Prof. Blog

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)

Dempsey v. Dempsey, 2005 WL 954856 (Fla. 2 DCA April 27, 2005) (Appeal Dismissed)

Under Florida Probate Rule 5.360, determining the elective share is a two step process. First, the trial court must rule on the issue of entitlement (Rule 5.360(c)). Second, if the trial court finds entitlement, then it must determine the amount of the elective share, the assets to be distributed to satisfy the elective share, and, if contribution is necessary, the amount of contribution for which each recipient is liable (Rule 5.360(d)).

Continue Reading...

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)

Estate of Heid v. Heid, 863 So.2d 1259 (Fla. 5th DCA Jan. 9, 2004) (TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED)

Edward J. Heid died on December 18, 1999. Mr. Heid's surviving wife, Blanche A. Heid, sought to enforce her elective share rights against a trust holding real and personal property that had benefitted her predeceased husband. Circuit Court Judge Charles M. Holcomb dismissed the complaint with prejudice for failure to state a cause of action. Noting that Section 732.2155(1) explicitly limits Florida's expanded elective share rights to decedents dying on or after October 1, 2001, the 5th DCA affirmed the trial court's dismissal with prejudice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments