Zoldan v. Zohlman

Citation915 So.2d 235
Decision Date30 November 2005
Docket NumberNo. 3D03-2185.,3D03-2185.
PartiesBarbara ZOLDAN, Appellant, v. Robert ZOHLMAN and Arthur Zohlman, as Co-Curators of the Estate of Charles Zohlman, Deceased, Appellees.
CourtFlorida Supreme Court

D. Culver Smith III (West Palm Beach), for appellant.

Tescher Gutter Chaves Josepher Rubin Ruffin & Forman and Peter J. Forman (Boca Raton), for appellees.

Before COPE, C.J., and FLETCHER and WELLS, JJ.

FLETCHER, Judge.

This is an appeal of a final judgment declaring a post nuptial agreement between a husband and wife to be invalid because of undue influence. For the reasons which follow, we reverse in part and affirm in part.

Charles Zohlman1 brought this action against his stepdaughter, Barbara Zoldan, individually and as personal representative of the estate of his late wife, Ida G. Zohlman, to revoke an agreement which he entered into with his wife on June 2, 1995. Charles also claimed a right to enforcement of several promissory notes in his favor by Barbara, individually and on behalf of her wholly owned company, Texas Work'n Western Boots, Inc.2

The claims were tried by the court without a jury resulting in the issuance of written findings of fact and conclusions of law on June 26, 2003. A summary of the trial court's findings include the following pertinent facts. Charles and Ida Zohlman were married in 1978. It was a second marriage for both of them. Charles had three sons from a first marriage and Ida had one daughter from her prior marriage. Charles was wealthy while Ida had limited assets. Throughout the marriage, Charles became close to Ida's daughter and her family. Beginning in the early 1990's and continuing through 1995, Barbara and her husband, Alex, experienced severe financial difficulty. To avoid foreclosure of their home, Charles loaned the couple $200,000 in late 1993 for which Barbara prepared and signed a promissory note in favor of Charles. Subsequently, Barbara, individually and as president of her company, signed promissory notes for loans in the amount of $150,000, $25,000, and $80,000 made to her company.

In July of 1993, Ida was diagnosed with cancer. Due to this illness, by early 1995 Charles and Ida, then 90 and 78, moved from Florida to reside with Barbara and her family in Westchester County, New York. During a visit from a long-time friend and financial advisor, the issue of the couple's estate plan arose. Upon being advised of Charles' intent to leave Barbara only $50,000 upon his death, Ida became enraged. She accused Charles of not doing right by her daughter and threatened divorce. After talking further with his friend and financial advisor, Charles concluded that including Barbara as a more substantial beneficiary in his estate was the right thing to do. Ida, however, was still distrustful of Charles and asked Barbara and her husband to assist her in determining her rights in the event of a divorce.

Barbara and her husband contacted Steven Frankel, a New York lawyer who had previously represented them in connection with the foreclosure of their home and other business matters. Frankel met with Charles and Ida and thereafter, together with Florida attorneys, prepared a will and trust agreement and a post nuptial agreement for Charles and Ida. As signed, the post nuptial agreement required Charles to name Barbara an heir equal to his three sons in his will. More importantly, the agreement could not be amended or revoked without the consent of both parties. Charles claims this provision of the agreement was never fully explained to him. All documents were executed by Charles and Ida on June 2, 1995. Ida died on July 25, 1995, and Charles returned to Florida soon thereafter.

In early 1996, Charles consulted a Florida attorney about his estate plan. He made some amendments to his estate documents, none of which changed Barbara's status as his heir. Thereafter, Charles attempted to obtain payment on the promissory notes executed by Barbara. The Zoldans claimed the debts had been forgiven by Charles in an April 17, 1995 letter which stated that the notes would be forgiven upon Ida's death....

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Zoldan v. Zohlman
    • United States
    • Florida District Court of Appeals
    • May 13, 2009
    ...method applicable in this case, we affirm. This is the second appearance of this case before this court. See Zoldan v. Zohlman, 915 So.2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) ("Zoldan I"). In Zoldan I, we addressed Charles Zohlman's claim that a post-nuptial agreement that he and his former spouse, Ida, ......
  • Zohlman v. Zoldan, SC05-2361.
    • United States
    • Florida Supreme Court
    • May 30, 2006
2 books & journal articles
  • Alternative dispute resolution and settlement
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Family Law and Practice - Volume 1
    • April 30, 2022
    ...agreement or judgment would not have affected the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter or the parties. • Zoldan v. Zohlman, 915 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). Evidence in proceeding to invalidate postnuptial agreement between husband and wife, pursuant to which husband agreed ADR, S......
  • Trusts & estates
    • United States
    • James Publishing Practical Law Books Florida Causes of Action
    • April 1, 2022
    ...force, or coercion to such an extent that the free agency and willpower of the testator is vitiated or destroyed. Zoldan v. Zohlman , 915 So. 2d 235, 237 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005). 6. Partial or Total Invalidity: “Any part of the will is void if so procured, but the remainder of the will not so pr......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT