Via v. Putnam

Supreme Court of Florida
656 So.2d 460 (1995)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A surviving spouse's statutory rights to a pretermitted or elective share of a decedent's estate have priority over the contractual claims of third-party beneficiaries arising from a mutual will executed by the decedent and a previous spouse.

Facts:

On November 15, 1985, Edgar Putnam and his first wife, Joann Putnam, executed mutual wills.
The wills contained a provision stating that the survivor would not change the residuary distribution, which was designated for their children, and would not do anything to defeat that distribution schedule.
Joann Putnam died, and Edgar Putnam accepted the benefits of her will.
Edgar Putnam later married his second wife, Mary Rachel Putnam.
Edgar Putnam died without executing a new will to provide for his second wife, Mary Rachel Putnam.

Procedural Posture:

Upon Edgar Putnam's death, his mutual will was admitted to probate.
Mary Rachel Putnam, the surviving spouse, filed a Petition to Determine Share of Pretermitted Spouse.
The children of Edgar Putnam's first marriage filed creditor claims against the estate, alleging breach of the mutual will contract.
The children also filed independent breach of contract actions, which were consolidated with the probate proceedings in the circuit court (trial court).
The trial judge granted summary judgment for the children, ruling that their claims were Class 7 creditor obligations with priority over any share for Mary Rachel Putnam.
Mary Rachel Putnam, as appellant, appealed to the Second District Court of Appeal.
The Second District Court of Appeal reversed, holding that the surviving spouse's share has priority over the children's claims, and noted a conflict with a Third District Court decision.
The children, as petitioners, sought review from the Supreme Court of Florida.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a surviving spouse's statutory right to a pretermitted share of a decedent's estate have priority over the claims of third-party beneficiaries of a contractual mutual will executed between the decedent and his former spouse?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Overton

Yes. A surviving spouse's statutory right to a pretermitted share of a decedent's estate takes priority over the contractual claims of beneficiaries of a mutual will. Florida maintains a strong and long-standing public policy of protecting the surviving spouse of the marriage that exists at the time of a decedent's death. This public policy, embodied in the pretermitted spouse and elective share statutes, outweighs the contractual rights of third-party beneficiaries. The court rejected the children's argument that they should be treated as creditors of the estate, as this would contravene the legislative intent of the spousal protection statutes and effectively add a judicial exception where the legislature has provided none. Relying on its own precedent in Tod v. Fuller and the reasoning of the Maryland high court in Shimp v. Huff, the court concluded that contracts to make a will are implicitly limited by the possibility that the survivor might remarry and that the subsequent spouse might exercise their statutory rights against the estate.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the primacy of a surviving spouse's statutory protections in Florida probate law, resolving a conflict among the state's district courts. It firmly establishes that contractual obligations from a prior marriage, such as those in a mutual will, cannot be used to defeat the inheritance rights of a current surviving spouse. The ruling reinforces the public policy that the institution of marriage and the protection of the surviving spouse are paramount legal principles. This precedent significantly impacts estate planning, clarifying for practitioners that mutual wills cannot be used as an ironclad method to disinherit a future spouse in Florida.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Via v. Putnam (1995)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"