Shakespeare v. Prince

• Decision Date: 10 January 2014
• Docket Number: No. 2D12–4300.,2D12–4300.
• Citation: 129 So.3d 412
• Parties: Robert SHAKESPEARE, an individual, Appellant, v. William D. PRINCE, as Trustee of the Agnes A. Shakespeare Revocable Trust dated 12/8/89, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Agnes A. Shakespeare, and individually, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

129 So.3d 412

Robert SHAKESPEARE, an individual, Appellant,

v.William D. PRINCE, as Trustee of the Agnes A. Shakespeare Revocable Trust dated 12/8/89, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Agnes A. Shakespeare, and individually, Appellee.

No. 2D12–4300.

District Court of Appeal of Florida,

Second District.

Dec. 4, 2013.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 10, 2014.

Frederick C. Kramer of The Kramer Law Firm, P.A., Marco Island, for Appellant.

Basil L. Bain of The Bain Law Firm, P.L., Naples, for Appellee.

DAVIS, Chief Judge.

Robert Shakespeare challenges certain final judgments entered against him in favor of William Prince. Numerous judgments were entered for monetary damages on various counts, and one judgment was entered to provide the equitable relief of reformation of a deed for real property.¹ Mr. Shakespeare specifically raises claims related to the reformation of the deed and the entry of the monetary judgments for the claims of tortious interference with an expectancy and breach of an antenuptial agreement. We affirm the judgment regarding the reformation of the deed without further comment, but because they are not supported by the record evidence, we must reverse the awards of damages on the claims for tortious interference and breach of an antenuptial agreement and remand for further proceedings.

Robert and Agnes Shakespeare married in 1985. The couple entered into an antenuptial agreement to maintain their assets separately. Mrs. Shakespeare had an adult child, William Prince, from a previous marriage. She also had inherited significant assets from another previous marriage. Following their marriage, Mr. and Mrs. Shakespeare purchased a home using a portion of Mrs. Shakespeare's premarital assets. Subsequent to the purchase, the title to the home was transferred solely into Mrs. Shakespeare's name. In 1989, she created a revocable trust, Mr. Shakespeare waived homestead rights, and the home became a trust asset. In 2007, Mr. Shakespeare prepared a quit claim deed transferring the house from the trust to him and his wife as a tenancy by the entireties. This deed was signed by Mrs. Shakespeare and her attorney, Joe Cox, in their capacities as cotrustees, and it was immediately recorded.

When Mr. Prince learned of the recorded deed, he met with Mrs. Shakespeare and Mr. Cox. Following the meeting, Mr. Cox prepared a letter to Mr. Shakespeare indicating that despite his discussion of the quit claim deed with Mrs. Shakespeare prior to her signing it, she did not understand the implications of the transfer of title and it was always her intent that Mr. Shakespeare's interest in the house continue after her death as a life estate interest with a remainder going to Mr. Prince. Following Mrs. Shakespeare's death, Mr. Prince, individually and in his capacities as trustee and personal representative of his mother's estate, brought an action against Mr. Shakespeare.

In addition to the reformation of the deed and other judgments for monetary relief not at issue in this appeal, the jury awarded $150,000 to Mr. Prince as personal representative of the estate for the breach of the antenuptial agreement and $150,000 to Mr. Prince, individually, for the tortious interference with an expectancy. Both of these claims were related to Mr. Shakespeare's role in Mrs. Shakespeare's quit claim transfer of the property out of the trust and into a tenancy by the entireties with rights of survivorship.

On appeal, Mr. Shakespeare argues that these two awards are not supported by evidence on the record. We agree. See generally Pearce & Pearce, Inc. v. Kroh Bros. Dev. Co., 474 So.2d 369, 371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985) (“The general rule is that the extent of damages determined by a trial court is a question of fact which will be affirmed on appeal if supported by competent, substantial evidence.”).

Each of the $150,000 awards was based on the allegation in the complaint that Mr. Shakespeare exerted undue influence over Mrs. Shakespeare, causing her to transfer the trust's entire interest in the property to him and thus preventing Mr. Prince from receiving the future interest in the property that his mother intended for him to receive upon her and Mr. Shakespeare's deaths. The record indicates through expert testimony that the home was valued at approximately $1,000,000, but...