Taylor v. Taylor
Florida District Court of Appeal
1 So. 3d 348 (2009)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Louis Taylor, decedent, and Mary Ann Taylor (defendant) executed a prenuptial agreement prior to their marriage. In the prenuptial agreement, Louis and Mary Ann agreed that each spouse’s property would remain their personal estate forever, free of any claim from the other spouse, and unrestricted as to each spouse’s right to use, sell, dispose of, or convey their own property. The prenuptial agreement further stated that Louis and Mary Ann did not intend their marriage to affect their respective financial interests. The prenuptial agreement included two subparagraphs specifically waiving all rights to support or property distribution from the other spouse in the event of divorce. After Louis’s death, Joshua Taylor (plaintiff), Louis’s son from before his marriage to Mary Ann, petitioned for a determination of beneficiaries. The trial court held that Louis and Mary Ann’s prenuptial agreement was ambiguous because it did not specify whether either spouse intended to waive surviving-spouse rights. After hearing testimony from Mary Ann that she did not intend to waive her surviving-spouse rights, the trial court held that the prenuptial agreement was not a valid waiver of Mary Ann’s constitutional and statutory rights as Louis’s widow. Joshua appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 812,000 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.
