Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

trialprobatewill
trial

Related Cases

Matter of Estate of Malloy, 134 Wash.2d 316, 949 P.2d 804
View Case »
Whitacre v. Crowe, 972 N.E.2d 659, 2012 -Ohio- 2981
View Case »
Pursley v. Estate of Messman, 154 N.E.3d 602, 2020-Ohio-2985
View Case »
In re Estate of Burren, 2013 IL App (1st) 120996, 994 N.E.2d 1022, 374 Ill.Dec. 85
View Case »
In re Ford’s Estate, 301 Pa. 183, 151 A. 789
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Foster v. Estate of Gomes, 27 So.3d 145, 35 Fla. L. Weekly D261

Facts

Prior to their marriage, Lora Foster and Edward Gomes entered into an antenuptial agreement in which Ms. Foster waived all right to Mr. Gomes's property, including her right to an elective share. Although not required by Florida law, Mr. Gomes disclosed the bulk of his assets when they entered the agreement, omitting one asset valued at approximately $10,000. After Mr. Gomes's death in 2006, his will was admitted into probate, leaving all property not specifically devised to Ms. Foster to his lineal descendants. Ms. Foster filed a notice of her election to take her elective share, prompting the personal representative to move to strike the petition based on the antenuptial agreement.

Prior to their marriage, Lora Foster and Edward Gomes entered into an antenuptial agreement in which Ms. Foster waived all right to Mr. Gomes's property, including her right to an elective share.

Issue

Did the omission of a minor asset by Mr. Gomes invalidate the antenuptial agreement that Lora Foster signed, waiving her right to an elective share?

Did the omission of a minor asset by Mr. Gomes invalidate the antenuptial agreement that Lora Foster signed, waiving her right to an elective share?

Rule

Florida law does not require prior disclosure of assets for an antenuptial agreement. Nondisclosure, whether fraudulent or not, is not considered in determining the validity of antenuptial agreements.

Florida law does not require prior disclosure of assets for an antenuptial agreement. Nondisclosure, whether fraudulent or not, is not considered in determining the validity of antenuptial agreements.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by emphasizing that the antenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable despite Mr. Gomes's omission of a minor asset. The court noted that Florida law does not mandate full disclosure of assets for such agreements and that the legislature intended to eliminate nondisclosure from affecting the validity of antenuptial agreements. Therefore, the court found that Ms. Foster's claim to an elective share was barred by the enforceable agreement.

The court applied the rule by emphasizing that the antenuptial agreement was valid and enforceable despite Mr. Gomes's omission of a minor asset.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the antenuptial agreement was valid and that Ms. Foster waived her right to an elective share of the estate.

The court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that the antenuptial agreement was valid and that Ms. Foster waived her right to an elective share of the estate.

Who won?

The prevailing party was Edward Gomes's estate, as the court upheld the antenuptial agreement and denied Ms. Foster's claim for an elective share.

The prevailing party was Edward Gomes's estate, as the court upheld the antenuptial agreement and denied Ms. Foster's claim for an elective share.

You must be