Stregack v. Moldofsky
Florida Supreme Court
474 So. 2d 206 (1985)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
When the last will and testament of Manuel Moldofsky was admitted to probate after his death, Manuel’s wife, Sally Moldofsky (plaintiff), filed a notice of elective share. Susan Stregack (defendant), who was Manuel’s daughter and the personal representative of Manuel’s estate, filed a motion to strike Sally’s notice of elective share based on an antenuptial agreement that was executed between Manuel and Sally prior to their marriage, in which Manuel and Sally each waived all rights to any claim in the other’s estate upon death. Thereafter, Sally filed an action in trial court, seeking to set aside the antenuptial agreement for fraud and alleging that Manuel knowingly failed to disclose certain assets to Sally at the time the agreement was executed. The probate court dismissed Sally’s motion for elective share, and the trial court dismissed Sally’s claim on mootness and res judicata grounds. The district court determined that Sally’s signature to execute the document was not properly obtained and reversed both orders on appeal, holding that a surviving spouse could challenge an antenuptial agreement based on a fraudulent nondisclosure of assets by the deceased spouse. Stregack appealed. The Supreme Court of Florida granted certiorari to review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (McDonald, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
