Taylor v. Taylor

• Citation: 1 So.3d 348
• Decision Date: 28 January 2009
• Docket Number: No. 1D08-1788.,1D08-1788.
• Parties: Joshua Eugene TAYLOR, as only child of Louis Eugene Taylor, deceased, Appellant, v. Mary Ann TAYLOR, as widow of Louis Eugene Taylor, Appellee.
• Court: Florida District Court of Appeals

1 So.3d 348

Joshua Eugene TAYLOR, as only child of Louis Eugene Taylor, deceased, Appellant, v. Mary Ann TAYLOR, as widow of Louis Eugene Taylor, Appellee.

No. 1D08-1788.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

January 28, 2009.

John G. Grimsley of Grimsley Marker & Iseley, P.A., Jacksonville, for Appellant.

Douglas A. Oberdorfer, Jacksonville, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Joshua Taylor, Appellant, appeals an Order on Petition for Determination of Beneficiaries. At issue in the proceedings below was the effect of a prenuptial agreement between Mary Ann Taylor, Appellee, and Louis Taylor, the decedent. The trial court ruled that the prenuptial agreement had no effect on Appellee's right to partake in the decedent's intestate estate as his surviving spouse. This ruling was erroneous. Because the unambiguous language of the prenuptial agreement provides that all property belonging to each spouse would "forever remain [his or her] personal estate" and that "said property shall remain forever free of claim by the other," we hold that Appellee waived her right to an elective share, intestate share, family allowance, and all of the other rights generally afforded to surviving spouses. Accordingly, we reverse.

Appellee married the decedent on June 22, 1996. On the previous day, Appellee and the decedent entered into a prenuptial agreement, which provides, in its entirety, as follows:

BE IT KNOWN, this agreement is entered into on this 21 day of June, 1996.

WHEREAS, the parties contemplate legal marriage under the laws of the State of Florida, and it is their mutual desire to enter into this agreement so that they will continue to own and control their own property, and are getting married because of their love for each other but do not desire that their present financial interest be changed by their marriage.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:

1. All property which belongs to each of the above parties shall be, and shall forever remain, their personal estate, including all interest, rents, and profits which may accrue from said property, and said property shall remain forever free of claim by the other.

2. The parties shall have at all times the full right and authority, in all respects the same as each would if not married, to use, sell, enjoy, manage, gift and convey all property as may presently belong to him or her.

3. In the event of a separation or divorce, the parties shall have no right against each other by way of claims for support, alimony, maintenance, compensation or division of property existing of this date.

4. In the event of separation or divorce, marital property acquired after marriage shall nevertheless remain subject to division, either by agreement or judicial determination.

5. This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties, their successors, assigns, and personal representatives.

This agreement shall be enforced with the laws of the State of Florida. Under this language, the agreement bears the signatures of the decedent, Appellee, two witnesses, and a notary.

After holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court found that the agreement was silent, and thus, ambiguous as to whether it affected the rights of one spouse in the event of the other spouse's death. Based on Appellee's testimony, the trial court found that she did not intend to waive any of the rights she would have in the event of her husband's death. Ultimately, the trial court ruled that the agreement did not affect the constitutional and statutory rights Appellee had as the decedent's widow.

A trial court's interpretation of a prenuptial agreement is reviewed de novo, as such agreements are governed by the law of contracts. See Weisfeld-Ladd v. Estate of Ladd, 920 So.2d 1148, 1150 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Contract interpretation begins with a review of the plain language of the agreement because the contract language is the best evidence of the parties' intent at the time of the execution of the contract. Royal Oak Landing Homeowner's Ass'n, Inc. v. Pelletier, 620 So.2d 786, 788 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). In construing the language of a contract, courts are to be mindful that "the goal is to arrive at a reasonable interpretation of the text of the entire agreement to accomplish its stated meaning and purpose." Delissio v. Delissio, 821 So.2d 350, 353 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002).

When the terms of a contract are ambiguous, parol evidence is admissible to "explain, clarify or elucidate" the ambiguous terms. Strama v. Union Fid. Life Ins. Co., 793 So.2d 1129, 1132 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001) (citation omitted). However, a trial court should not admit parol evidence until it first determines that the terms of a contract are ambiguous. See Weisfeld-Ladd, 920 So.2d at 1149-50; see also Acceleration Nat'l Svcs. Corp. v. Brickell Fin. Svcs. Motor Club, Inc., 541 So.2d 738, 739 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) ("In the absence of an ambiguity on the face of a contract, it is well settled that the actual language used in the contract is the best...