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.
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.