Plant v. Plant, s. 74--1461
| Decision Date | 16 September 1975 |
| Docket Number | 75--152,Nos. 74--1461,s. 74--1461 |
| Citation | 320 So.2d 455 |
| Parties | Howard M. PLANT, Appellant, v. Louise Donna PLANT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Frates, Floyd, Pearson, Stewart, Proenza & Richman, Miami, for appellant.
Fine, Jacobson, Block & Semet, Miami, for appellee.
Before HAVERFIELD and NATHAN, JJ., and CHARLES CARROLL (Ret.), Associate Judge.
In these consolidated appeals ex-husband seeks review of certain provisions of a final judgment of dissolution of marriage and subsequent order wherein ex-wife was awarded attorney's fees and costs.
After approximately ten years of marriage, Howard Plant, appellant, petitioned for a dissolution of his marriage and entry of a court order approving the antenuptial agreement entered into by the parties on September 18, 1964. Respondent, Louise Plant, filed her answer alleging the above agreement to be a legal nullity and void, and a counterclaim seeking, inter alia, an award of the marital residence.
After final hearing, the chancellor entered a final judgment dissolving the marital bonds between the parties and awarding Louise custody of her two minor children by a prior marriage who were adopted by Howard Plant.
In addition, the judgment contained extensive findings upon which the chancellor based his conclusion that the September 18, 1964 prenuptial agreement was void. Thereupon, the chancellor provided, inter alia, that (1) petitioner, Howard Plant, pay to the respondent, Louise Plant, $35,000 per year as alimony, payable monthly in advance until she should die or remarry; (2) Howard pay to Louise the sum of $10,000 per year per child for support until such time as said children attain the age of 21; (3) Howard pay all dental and medical expenses for Louise and the two children; and (4) Howard convey to Louise all his interest in the marital home, the furnishings, furniture and fixtures therein, and the vacant lot adjacent to the residence.
After the conclusion of a full evidentiary hearing thereon, the chancellor awarded Louise $100,000 in attorney's fees and $5,521.78 as costs.
These consolidated appeals follow.
Appellant first urges as error the chancellor's invalidation of the antenuptial agreement.
A valid antenuptial agreement contemplates a fair and reasonable provision therein for the wife, or absent such a provision, a full and frank disclosure to the wife before the signing of the agreement, of the husband's worth, or absent such a disclosure, a general and approximate knowledge by her of the prospective husband's property. Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, Fla.1962, 143 So.2d 17.
The provision for appellee, ex-wife, of $15,000 per year being patently an unfair and unreasonable provision in light of appellant's wealth and standard of living at the time the agreement was executed, it was within the province of the chancellor to determine as matter of fact whether the appellee, seeking to set aside the antenuptial agreement, had some understanding of her rights. Del Vecchio, supra.
The evidence with respect thereto amply supports the finding of the chancellor that (1) appellee's allegedly independent counsel was not representing her, but in reality was acting in the best interest of the appellant; (2) said counsel did not advise the appellee competently and independently of the rights she was waiving; (3) appellant's 1963 income tax return showing a net taxable income of $16,000 was deceiving and did not reflect adequately the true worth of appellant; (4) without any prior notice, appellee on the day preceding her wedding was presented and requested to sign the agreement; and (5) the agreement itself tended to facilitate divorce or separation as it permitted appellant by his unilateral act of leaving the appellee to deprive her of the homestead should he die and to limit her to the inadequate alimony provisions thereof.
In addition, the fact is uncontested that appellant failed to obtain a $200,000 life insurance policy on his life for the benefit of appellee as required by the agreement. Appellant thereby abandoned said agreement. See McMullen v. McMullen, Fla.App.1966, 185 So.2d 191.
Thus, appellant's argument that there was no competent substantial evidence sustaining the findings of the chancellor in nullifying the subject agreement is devoid of merit.
Appellant next contends that the chancellor exceeded his jurisdiction by transferring to appellee title of the marital residence and its contents solely owned by the appellant and the vacant lot adjoined thereto. We find this point well taken.
The chancellor found that appellant and appell...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chaney v. Chaney
...absent a contrary statute or agreement by the parties. See, e.g., Hilton v. McNitt, 49 Cal.2d 79, 315 P.2d 1 (1957); Plant v. Plant, 320 So.2d 455 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1975), cert. dis'd, 341 So.2d 292 (Fla.1976); Gordon v. Gordon, 335 So.2d 321 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1976); Simpson v. Simpson, 18 Md......
-
Smith v. Smith, 79-546
...364 So.2d 1255 (Fla. 2d DCA 1978); Singer v. Singer, 342 So.2d 861 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977); McNaughton v. McNaughton, supra; Plant v. Plant, 320 So.2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 107 (Fla.1977); Reisman v. Reisman, 314 So.2d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, 336 So.2d 10......
-
Eagan v. Eagan
...DCA 1977); Eberly v. Eberly, 344 So.2d 886 (Fla.4th DCA 1977); Lithgow v. Lithgow, 340 So.2d 1283 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); Plant v. Plant, 320 So.2d 455 (Fla.3d DCA 1975); Simon v. Simon, 319 So.2d 46 (Fla.3d DCA 1975). This basis for requiring the maintenance of life insurance is not applicable ......
-
Kemmerer v. Kemmerer, 80-2
...(Fla. 1st DCA 1977); McNaughton v. McNaughton, 332 So.2d 673 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976), cert. denied, 345 So.2d 424 (Fla.1977); Plant v. Plant, 320 So.2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), cert. denied, dismissed, 336 So.2d 107, 341 So.2d 292 (Fla.1976); Reisman v. Reisman, 314 So.2d 783 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), ......
-
§ 4.03A Points of Disagreement and Other Concerns
...Columbia: Burtoff v. Burtoff, 418 A.2d 1085, 1089 (D.C. 1980). Florida: Cladis v. Cladis, 512 So.2d 271 (Fla. App. 1987); Plant v. Plant, 320 So.2d 455, 457 (Fla. App. 1975). Missouri: Gould v. Rafaeli, 822 S.W.2d 494 (Mo. App. 1991). Ohio: Rowland v. Rowland, 74 Ohio App.3d 415, 599 N.E.2d......
-
§ 4.14 Miscellaneous Marriage Contract Issues
...v. Marshall, 729 So.2d 860 (Ala. App. 1998).[572] See Scherr-Thoss v. Scherr-Thoss, 141 P.3d 705 (Wyo. 2006).[573] See Plant v. Plant, 320 So.2d 455 (Fla. App. 1975).[574] See: Colorado: Marriage of Zimmerman, 714 P.2d 927 (Col. App. 1986). Idaho: Liebelt v. Liebelt, 118 Idaho 845, 870 P.2d......
-
§ 4.03 Modern Enforceability: Generally Accepted Equitable Limits
...the wedding); Lutgert v. Lutgert, 338 So.2d 1111, 1116 (Fla. App. 1976) (contract presented one day before marriage); Plant v. Plant, 320 So.2d 455, 457 (Fla. App. 1975) (contract presented one day before marriage). Iowa: In re Marriage of Maifield, 577 N.W.2d 872 (Iowa App. 2004) (contract......
-
Probable problematic pitfalls in preparing prenuptial agreements.
...represent both parties, or give any "advice" to the other party. Counsel must be "independent." Otherwise, as occurred in Plant v. Plant, 320 So. 2d 455 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975), (32) the challenging spouse can argue he or she was given erroneous advice and/or the attorney was actually acting in ......