In re Estate of Butler
Florida District Court of Appeal
444 So. 2d 477 (1984)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Georgia Mae Butler (plaintiff) and Nathaniel Butler married in 1946 but unofficially separated in 1947 after a short cohabitation. Nathaniel told Georgia he had obtained a divorce from her, but Georgia was never served with divorce papers and never affirmatively sought a divorce from Nathaniel herself. Believing herself divorced, Georgia married James Whitfield in 1950. Nathaniel married Rosa Butler (defendant) in 1963, with whom he cohabitated as husband and wife until his death in 1975. Nathaniel told Rosa he was divorced from Georgia. Georgia eventually learned that she was not validly divorced from Nathaniel and that Nathaniel had married Rosa. In 1981, approximately six years after his death, Georgia filed a petition to be appointed the personal representative of Nathaniel’s estate as his surviving spouse. Rosa filed objections, arguing that Georgia could not claim surviving-spouse benefits because she had repudiated her marriage to Nathaniel by entering into a bigamous marriage with Whitfield in 1950 despite knowing that Nathaniel was still alive and that she had not received any paperwork evidencing her purported divorce. The trial court ruled that Georgia was estopped from asserting surviving-spouse rights. Georgia appealed, arguing that she had remarried in reliance on Nathaniel’s statement that he had obtained a divorce and had therefore not acted with the requisite blatant disregard for the marital relationship necessary to repudiate it and support estoppel.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Lehan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.