Weintraub v. Weintraub
| Decision Date | 08 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 60524,60524 |
| Parties | I. Irving WEINTRAUB, Petitioner, v. Clara L. WEINTRAUB, Respondent. |
| Court | Florida Supreme Court |
Guyte McCord, III, of Spector, Tunnicliff & McCord, Tallahassee, for petitioner.
Huntley Johnson of Cushman & Johnson, Gainesville, for respondent.
This cause is before the Court on petition for review of a decision of the district court of appeal, which the court certified to have passed upon the following question of great public importance:
Does Section 732.702(2) validate premarital agreements otherwise invalid under Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, 143 So.2d 17 (Fla.1962), when the agreement is questioned on grounds of non-disclosure in a marriage dissolution or other proceedings affecting property during the lifetimes of the spouses?
Weintraub v. Weintraub, 395 So.2d 302, 303 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). We have jurisdiction. Art. V, § 3(b)(4), Fla.Const.
In an action for dissolution of the parties' marriage, the petitioner-husband interposed an antenuptial agreement in bar to the respondent-wife's claim for alimony. The trial court ruled that the agreement was invalid because petitioner did not disclose the extent of his resources before its execution, nor did respondent have knowledge of his resources through other means.
On appeal, the district court upheld the trial court ruling, finding that section 732.702, Florida Statutes (1979), which abolished the disclosure requirement in probate proceedings is not applicable to the dissolution process. We approve the decision of the district court of appeal.
This Court considered the validity of antenuptial agreements in Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, 143 So.2d 17 (Fla.1962). There it was said that such agreements may be upheld on either one of two grounds. First, if the agreement makes a fair and reasonable provision for the less financially secure party, it is presumptively valid. In the absence of a fair and reasonable provision, the agreement may still be upheld if the less secure party entered into it with an understanding of the rights being waived. Such an understanding can be assumed if the less secure party had knowledge of the assets of the wealthier party. That knowledge may be obtained either directly through a disclosure by the wealthier party, or indirectly, from other sources. Id. at 20.
Del Vecchio established standards for antenuptial agreements in the probate setting, but the same standards were later applied to dissolution hearings in Posner v. Posner, 233 So.2d 381 (Fla.1970). There the Court noted that while contracts which were intended to encourage or facilitate divorce were illegal as contrary to public policy, an antenuptial agreement negotiated in good faith could encourage marital tranquility. Id. at 382-83. Where the antenuptial agreement met the Del Vecchio standards and the divorce was prosecuted in good faith, the agreement would be upheld. Id. at 385. Thus, as of 1970, antenuptial agreements could be upheld in both probate and dissolution proceedings only when they either met the fairness standard or were entered into knowingly.
The rule as to probate was changed in 1974 when the legislature enacted what is now section 732.702(2), Florida Statutes (1979). 1 That statute makes valid all agreements entered into before marriage, even in the absence of disclosure. The statute is only applicable to probate proceedings 2 and no parallel statute exists pertaining to the validity of antenuptial agreements in dissolution proceedings.
Petitioner asks that we reverse our holding in Posner, and change the common law rule pertaining to dissolution to correspond with the statutory change in the probate code. If we were to so hold, petitioner's agreement would be valid despite the lack of disclosure and would be dispositive of the question of alimony. Petitioner's main argument is centered on public policy grounds and focuses on the disparity first mentioned by the Posner court. Simply stated, if a spouse enters into a disadvantageous agreement without disclosure or knowledge of the other's assets, the discrepancy in the rules could promote divorce. That is, if the marriage is maintained until the death of the wealthier spouse, the antenuptial agreement will be valid in the absence of disclosure under section 732.702(2), and the spouse may possibly receive little or nothing from the estate. If the spouse pursues a divorce, however, the agreement will be invalid because of the lack of disclosure under Posner and the spouse could receive property and alimony in excess of what is provided for in the agreement. The disparity in the rules, it is argued, creates an incentive for divorce. See Posner v. Posner, 233 So.2d at 383.
We find petitioner's argument lacking for several reasons. First, it should be remembered that an agreement that promotes divorce is invalid on public policy grounds. Here, petitioner is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Flagship Nat. Bank of Miami v. King
...but not before the marriage, is accompanied by a "fair disclosure" of the assets of the other spouse. See generally, Weintraub v. Weintraub, 417 So.2d 629 (1982). The obvious reasons for the statute's elimination of the disclosure requirement in the antenuptial situation only are simultaneo......
-
In re Estate of Davis
...probate context even when executed under conditions which would render it invalid in a marriage dissolution action. Weintraub v. Weintraub, 417 So.2d 629, 630 (Fla. 1982). The Florida Code Waiver of Spousal Rights. (1) The rights of a surviving spouse to an elective share, intestate share, ......
-
Moldofsky v. Stregack
...the supreme court acknowledged that section 732.702 abrogated the disclosure requirement in a probate context. Accord Weintraub v. Weintraub, 417 So.2d 629 (Fla.1982). The court noted, however, that "[t]he legislature has not abolished the wife's right to sue; it has only altered one of the......
-
Estate of Spangenberg, In re, 89-00656
...of Miami v. King, 418 So.2d 275, 279 n. 8 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). See generally Casto v. Casto, 508 So.2d 330 (Fla.1987); Weintraub v. Weintraub, 417 So.2d 629 (Fla.1982); Belcher v. Belcher, 271 So.2d 7 (Fla.1972).3 I recognize that should the trial court determine that the agreement is a post......
-
§ 4.03 Modern Enforceability: Generally Accepted Equitable Limits
...Florida: Hjortaas v. McCabe, 656 So.2d 168 (Fla. App. 1995); Anttila v. Sinikka, 611 So.2d 565 (Fla. App. 1992); Weintraub v. Weintraub, 417 So.2d 629 (Fla. 1982). Georgia: Corbett v. Corbett, 280 Ga. 369, 628 S.E.2d 585 (2006); Alexander v. Alexander, 279 Ga. 116, 610 S.E.2d 48 (2005). Ind......
-
Probable problematic pitfalls in preparing prenuptial agreements.
...divorce overlook the case law involving divorce requiring disclosure of assets, liabilities and income. See also Weintraub v. Weintraub, 417 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1982) (Abolishment of disclosure requirement if agreement entered into before the marriage is only applicable in probate context, not......