Williams-Paris v. Joseph
| Decision Date | 01 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 4D20-1760 |
| Parties | ARLENE WILLIAMS-PARIS, Appellant, v. APRIL NELLE JOSEPH, PRISCILLA PARIS-AUSTIN, THEODORE PARIS, and SAMUEL PARIS, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Palm Beach County; Charles E. Burton, Judge; L.T. Case No 50-2019-CP-002796-XXXX-SB.
Robert J. Hauser, John J. Pankauski and Jason D. Lazarus of Pankauski Hauser Lazarus, PLLC, West Palm Beach, for appellant.
Ellen S. Morris of Elder Law Associates, P.A., Boca Raton, for appellees.
Arlene Williams-Paris ("the Wife") appeals several probate court orders determining that she waived her right to inherit as a spouse by signing a prenuptial agreement. The Wife raises multiple issues on appeal. We write to address only two of the issues, affirming as to one issue and reversing as to the other. We affirm the remaining issues on appeal without discussion.
This case involves the enforceability and scope of a prenuptial agreement entered into hours before the Wife and Calvin Paris ("the decedent") got married. The couple lived together in the decedent's home for approximately five years before the wedding and continued to do so afterwards.
Approximately a year before the marriage, the decedent told the Wife that "if we get married, I would like you to get a prenup." Wife responded that she did not want to pay for a prenuptial agreement, and according to the Wife, the issue was never brought up again until their wedding day. In June 2015, the decedent proposed that the couple get married the following month when his family would be vacationing in Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts where he owned a second home. The Wife agreed and made the arrangements with a month's notice. At the time the parties married, the decedent was 83 years old, and the Wife was 58 years old. Both had been married before.
On the day of the wedding, the decedent woke the Wife at 7:00 a.m demanding her to find a prenuptial agreement online and sign it. When she expressed her dismay, the decedent refused to marry her unless she signed one, explaining that she was to be his fifth wife and a prenuptial agreement was necessary in the event of divorce. At that point, the family members and guests were all in Martha's Vineyard for the wedding. Feeling pressured by the significant potential embarrassment of canceling the wedding, the Wife reluctantly followed the decedent downstairs to the small office in the home, where the decedent closed the door and instructed her to search the word "prenup" online. The Wife then selected a website offering legal forms online using a digital program to create an agreement by filling in responses to prompts. Most of the information responding to the prompts was supplied by the decedent. The form agreement could not be read until all of the questions asked in the prompts were completed. After the prompts were completed, including ones providing their financial information for the exhibits to the agreement, the Wife printed the prenuptial agreement. The decedent then drove the Wife to a notary nearby where they signed the agreement in the notary's presence. After the agreement was signed, the Wife rushed to get ready for the marriage ceremony, which occurred at 4:00 p.m. that day.
Approximately four years after the marriage, the decedent passed away and intestate while still married to the Wife. Thereupon, the Wife petitioned the probate court to: (1) invalidate the prenuptial agreement; (2) declare the residence described in paragraph 2 of the agreement to be the decedent's homestead subject to her election to take a one-half interest; and (3) award her intestate share and elective share of the estate as spouse. The petition argued that the prenuptial agreement was invalid based on fraud, deceit duress, coercion, misrepresentation, and overreaching since the decedent never explained that it applied in the event of death ("count I"), and because it contained unfair or unreasonable provisions ("count II"). Additionally, she petitioned for rescission of the agreement based on her unilateral mistake ("count III"). The petition was served on the appellees, the decedent's children ("the Children").
Subsequently, the Wife moved the probate court for instructions and determination of whether Massachusetts or Florida law governed the enforceability of the prenuptial agreement. As discussed more fully in the analysis section below, the probate court determined Florida law governed the issue of the agreement's validity.
The Children then moved for summary judgment, arguing that the prenuptial agreement had a specific provision pertaining to a spouse's death and therefore discounted Wife's argument that it was only effective in the event of divorce. Additionally, in response to the Wife's contention that the decedent did not fully disclose his assets prior to the agreement being signed or in the exhibits attached to the agreement, the Children argued that full disclosure was not required under Florida law when the agreement's validity is contested in a probate proceeding. The Children further argued the Wife knew what she was signing and was not coerced into signing, as verified by the notary's affidavit filed in support of the motion stating that the notary did not indicate that anything unusual occurred when the prenuptial agreement was signed. The Wife filed a response and counter affidavit to the motion for summary judgment.
The probate court granted the Children summary judgment on the Wife's coercion and duress arguments. However, the probate court denied the Children summary judgment on the Wife's unilateral mistake argument, ruling material disputed facts remained as to whether the decedent represented the agreement was to apply only in the event of divorce and not death.
After a nonjury trial on the disputed issue of misrepresentation and unilateral mistake, the probate court denied the Wife's petition to invalidate the prenuptial agreement on those issues. The Wife then gave notice of appeal.
The Wife argues that because the prenuptial agreement was signed by both parties in Massachusetts, the probate court should have applied the choice of law rule of lex loci contractus in determining the agreement's validity. She further contends that the rule's exceptions do not apply to the agreement. The rule "specifies that the law of the jurisdiction where the contract was executed should control." Sturiano v. Brooks, 523 So.2d 1126 1129 (Fla. 1988). The Children argue that the public policy exception to the lex loci contractus rule precludes applying Massachusetts law to determine the agreement's validity.
"The standard of review for choice-of-law questions is de novo." Higgins v. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 85 So.3d 1156, 1157 (Fla. 5th DCA 2012) (citing Sosa v Safeway Premium Fin. Co., 73 So.3d 91, 102 (Fla. 2011)).
As our supreme court has explained, "we apply different choice of law rules to different areas of the law." State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Roach, 945 So.2d 1160, 1163 (Fla. 2006). "[I]n determining which state's law applies to contracts, we have long adhered to the rule of lex loci contractus." Id. However, the rules of comity may be departed from in certain cases "for the purpose of necessary protection of our own citizens, or of enforcing some paramount rule of public policy." Id. at 1164 (quoting Herron v. Passailaigue, 110 So. 539, 542 (Fla. 1926); see also In re Estate of Nicole Santos ("Santos"), 648 So.2d 277, 281 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995) (). Our supreme court has made clear that what has become known as the public policy exception to the rule of lex loci contractus "requires both a Florida citizen in need of protection and a paramount Florida public policy." Roach, 945 So.2d at 1165.
In this case, the probate court determined that Florida law controlled the issue of the agreement's validity. The probate court acknowledged that Florida follows the lex loci contractus rule but noted that in Gillen v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 300 So.2d 3 (Fla. 1974), our supreme court recognized a public policy exception to the rule. There, the court applied Florida law to an insurance contract signed in New Hampshire because the insured vehicle and the insured remained in Florida. Id. at 6-7.
In deciding that the public policy exception applied in this case, the probate court reasoned that cases upon which the children relied - Gordon v. Russell, 561 So.2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), and Gustafson v. Jensen, 515 So.2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) - purportedly held that Florida law applied in determining the prenuptial agreements' validity because the parties in those cases had meager connections with the jurisdictions in which the agreements were executed. The Wife contended that Roach effectively abrogated Gillen, Gustafson and Gordon, and that the more recent cases of Ziegler v. Natera, 279 So.3d 1240 (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) and Santos, 648 So.2d 277, reaffirmed that the lex loci contractus rule controlled. The probate court decided that reliance on Ziegler and Santos was "unavailing" and that Roach did not totally abrogate Gillen, Gustafson, and Gordon. The probate court also felt this case's facts were similar to Gustafson. Additionally, the probate court agreed with Judge Warner's dissent in Santos that the public policy exception should apply more broadly to marital agreements than to insurance agreements because protecting parties in marital agreements is a particularly...
To continue reading
Request your trial