IN RE ESTATE OF ALBERT SHORE, DECEASED
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
This estate case addresses whether a prenuptial agreement becomes enforceable again when a postnuptial agreement intended to replace it is found invalid due to lack of financial disclosure. The court affirmed that when a substituted agreement is void, the original agreement revives.
The court held that when a substituted contract is found voidable or invalid, the prior contract ordinarily becomes enforceable again. Because the postnuptial agreement was invalid due to missing financial disclosures, the prenuptial agreement rights were not extinguished and revived.
[1] When parties intend a new contract to replace all provisions of an earlier contract, the new contract is a substituted contract.
[2] If a substituted contract is voidable, the prior contract becomes enforceable.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“when a substituted agreement is found to be invalid, the prior agreement ordinarily becomes once again enforceable”
States the core principle governing the revival of original agreements when substituted agreements fail
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBeatrice Shore, the decedent Albert Shore's wife, challenged the trial court's revival of a prenuptial agreement after the postnuptial agreement was f…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Substituted Contract cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
We affirm all issues on appeal and cross appeal, and write only to address the issue of substituted agreements.
The appellant, Beatrice Shore, the decedent’s wife, argues that the trial court erred in reviving the prenuptial agreement after concluding that the postnuptial agreement was invalid due to the decedent’s failure to make a financial disclosure pursuant to section 732.702(2), Florida Statutes (1989). The trial court, however, found that the postnuptial agreement was a substituted agreement for the prenuptial agreement and stated “when a substituted agreement is found to be invalid, the prior agreement ordinarily becomes once again enforceable.” We agree.
When parties intend a new contract to replace all of the provisions of an earlier contract, the new contract is a substituted contract. See Sans Souci v. Division of Florida Land, 421 So. 2d 623, 630 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). If a substituted contract is voidable, the earlier contract becomes enforceable. The Restatement Second of Contracts § 279 states:
to the extent that the substituted contract is vulnerable on such grounds as mistake, misrepresentation, duress or un- conscionability, recourse may be had on the original duty. Thus, if the substituted contract is voidable, it discharges the original duty until avoidance, but on avoidance of the substituted contract the original duty is again enforceable.
Likewise, Corbin on Contracts § 1293 provides that
the substituted contract may itself be voidable for fraud, infancy, or other reasons; and if the power of avoidance is exercised, the avoided contract is nullified both as an executory accord and as a discharge. The prior claim then becomes enforceable.
In the case at bar, the postnuptial agreement was intended to replace the prenuptial agreement. If the postnuptial agreement had been valid, the original obligation under the prenuptial agreement would have been discharged. Yet, the postnuptial agreement was invalid because neither party made a financial disclosure pursuant to section 732.702(2). Therefore, the rights under the prenuptial agreement were not extinguished. See City Bank & Trust Co. v. New Iberia Hotel Partners, 486 So. 2d 1201, 1204 (La.App. 3d Cir.1986); Spellman v. Ruhde, 28 Wis.2d 599, 137 N.W. 2d 425, 428 (1965). Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
DOWNEY, GUNTHER and POLEN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spatz v. The Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 746 So. 2d 1137 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…n the validity of the 1991 policy, we conclude that it was error to determine that the 1991 policy extinguished Paul Revere’s obligation under the 1989 policy. This court addressed this issue, albeit in a different context, in In re Estate of Shore, 605 So. 2d 951 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), where a prenuptial agreement was revived after the parties’ post-nuptial agreement was invalidated. In reaching this decision, this court held: “If a substituted contract is voidable, the earlier contract becomes enforceable.” I…
-
White Constr. Co. v. Martin Marietta Materials, Inc., 633 F. Supp. 2d 1302 (M.D. Fla. 2009)…tablished rule of law is that a contract may be discharged or extinguished by merger into a later contract entered into between the parties in respect to the same subject which replaces the original contract.”). See also In re Estate of Shore, 605 So.2d 951 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992); *1324 Topp, Inc. v. Uniden American Corp., 483 F.Supp.2d 1187, 1218-19 (S.D.Fla.2007). Summary judgment shall be granted as to Count I. II. Count Two: Breach of Fiduciary Duty The Plaintiffs’ second claim i…
Authorities Cited
- Sans Souci v. Div. OF Fla. Land Sales & Condos., 421 So. 2d 623 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)