IN RE ESTATE OF JAMES H. DUMAS, DECEASED. DAISY DUMAS, APPELLANT,
v.
EMILY SANFORD AND JACKIE SANFORD, APPELLEES

Fla. 5th DCA | 1982-03-17
No. 81-475
COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.
413 So. 2d 58 Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District (1982) Positive Treatment
Cited by 4 cases

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.

Synopsis

Daisy Dumas, the surviving widow of James H. Dumas, appeals the revocation of her letters of administration and the probate of a lost will that favored non-relatives from the decedent's prior marriage. The court held that Florida's Pretermitted Spouse statute mandates that the surviving widow receives the entire estate when no lineal descendants survive, regardless of any prior will.


Holding

The surviving spouse receives the entire intestate estate when no lineal descendants survive the decedent, regardless of any prior will. The Pretermitted Spouse statute (section 732.301, Fla. Stat.) is absolute and not subject to rebuttal. The trial court erred in allowing the non-relative beneficiaries to present evidence challenging the statutory presumption.


Headnotes

[1] A surviving spouse is entitled to an intestate share of a testator's estate if the testator marries after making a will and the spouse is not provided for in the will, un…

[2] The Pretermitted Spouse statute is absolute and not subject to rebuttal, and no exceptions should be extended beyond those clearly comprehended by the statute.

Previewing 2 of 4 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

Key Quotes

“When a person marries after making a will and the spouse survives the testator, the surviving spouse shall receive a share in the estate of the testator equal in value to that which the surviving spouse would have received if the testator had died intestate, unless: (1) Provision has been made for, or waived by, the spouse by prenuptial or postnuptial agreement; (2) The spouse is provided for in the will; or (3) The will discloses an intention not to make provision for the spouse.”

The controlling statutory language of the Pretermitted Spouse statute that mandates the widow's share unless one of three limited exceptions applies.

Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Facts & Procedural History

James H. Dumas executed a will before his marriage to Daisy naming Emily Sanford (daughter of his former spouse) and Jackie Sanford (her child) as ben…

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.


Opinion of the Court
DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.

DAUKSCH, Chief Judge.

This is an appeal from an order revoking letters of administration and granting probate of a lost will.

James H. Dumas died, leaving his wife Daisy. Sometime before his death, and before his marriage to Daisy, the decedent had purportedly made a will naming appel-lees as beneficiaries. The appellees are not lineal descendants of the decedent and are not legally related to the decedent. Appel-lee Emily Sanford is a daughter of a previous spouse of the decedent and appellee Jackie Sanford is her child.

The appellees were permitted by the trial court to show they had been provided for in a will of the decedent by introducing into evidence a copy of a will. The will had been executed before the marriage between the decedent and Daisy and the trial judge held it to be the “last will” of the decedent. There was conflicting evidence as to whether the decedent still intended to provide for the appellees subsequent to his marriage to Daisy Dumas. However, the conflicting evidence as to the decedent’s intentions is irrelevant because the statutory law is clear on the subject and controlling in this case.

The applicable statute is section 732.301, Florida Statutes (1981), and it provides that a person who makes a will and then marries a person not provided for in the will is presumed to have meant to leave that spouse an intestate share in his estate. The statute has some limited exceptions, none of which are applicable here based on the proof submitted to the trial court. The statute is called the Pretermitted Spouse statute and reads as follows:

When a person marries after making a will and the spouse survives the testator, the surviving spouse shall receive a share in the estate of the testator equal in value to that which the surviving spouse would have received if the testator had died intestate, unless:
(1) Provision has been made for, or waived by, the spouse by prenuptial or postnuptial agreement;

(2) The spouse is provided for in the will; or

(3) The will discloses an intention not to make provision for the spouse.

The share of the estate that is assigned to the pretermitted spouse shall be obtained in accordance with section 733.805.

Because the decedent in the instant case died leaving no lineal descendants and was survived by his wife, the appellees are not entitled to share in his estate, regardless of the will. A pretermit-ted spouse receives the entire estate where no lineal descendants survive the decedent. Hoffman v. Kohns, 385 So. 2d 1064, 1069 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980). Section 732.102, Florida Statutes (1981) says:

(1) The intestate share of the surviving spouse is:
(a) If there is no surviving lineal descendant of the decedent, the entire intestate estate.

When section 732.301, Pretermitted spouse, and section 732.102, Share of spouse> are read together there is no getting around it — the widow takes the entire intestate estate when no lineal descendant survives the decedent.

The trial court erred in its determination “Upon the peculiar facts of this case, the court construes the statutes to permit the petitioners (appellees) an opportunity to present evidence in rebuttal to the statutory presumption in favor of a pretermitted spouse.” That statute does not raise a mere presumption, it is absolute; not subject to rebuttal, and no exception should be extended to include a class not clearly comprehended by the statute. See Estate of Ganier, 402 So. 2d 418 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981).

The order is reversed and this cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

COBB and SHARP, JJ., concur.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Cited By

  • In re Est. OF Joseph Francis Gaspelin v. Gaspelin, 542 So. 2d 1023 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
    …tted spouse pursuant to section 732.301, Florida Statutes (1985). Since Mr. Gaspelin’s heirs do not include any lineal descendants, the final judgment awarded Mrs. Gaspelin the entire estate. § 732.102(l)(a), Fla.Stat. (1985); In re Estate of Dumas, 413 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 5th DCA), review denied, 422 So. 2d 843 (Fla.1982), appeal dismissed, 460 U.S. 1076, 103 S.Ct. 1761, 76 L.Ed.2d 337 (1983). The estate cross-appeals an award of attorney’s fees to the attorney who unsuccessfully represented the beneficiaries i…
  • Est. OF Mark H. Weinberg v. Schwartz, 534 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
    …PER CURIAM. Affirmed. In re Estate of Dumas, 413 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 5th DCA), rev. denied, 422 So. 2d 843 (Fla.1982); In re Estate of Rice, 406 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981), rev. denied, 418 So. 2d 1280 (Fla.1982); In re [*1183] Will of Jones, 289 So. 2d 42 (Fla. 2d DCA 1974).…

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw