WILLA MAE ROBERTS, PETITIONER,
v.
MICHAEL W. ROBERTS, RESPONDENT
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.
The doctrine of interspousal immunity bars a suit by a former spouse against a deceased spouse's estate for an intentional tort committed during the marriage.
A former wife sued her deceased husband's estate for intentional torts allegedly committed during the marriage. The trial court granted summary judgme…
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 Interspousal Immunity cases and more on FLexlaw
OVERTON, Judge.
Petitioner, Willa Mae Roberts, sued Michael W. Roberts as personal representative of her deceased husband’s estate, alleging that during their marriage the decedent husband intentionally injured her. The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the estate on the basis of inter-spousal immunity. The First District Court of Appeal, in its decision reported at 382 So. 2d 376, affirmed the summary judgment and certified pursuant to article V, section 3(b)(4), Florida Constitution, the following question as one of great public importance:
DOES THE DOCTRINE OF INTER-SPOUSAL IMMUNITY BAR SUIT BY ONE FORMER SPOUSE AGAINST A DECEASED SPOUSE’S ESTATE WHEN AN INTENTIONAL TORT ALLEGEDLY WAS COMMITTED DURING THE MARRIAGE WHICH NOW HAS BEEN TERMINATED BY THE ALLEGED TORTFEASOR SPOUSE’S DEATH?
We refused to modify the interspousal immunity doctrine in Hill v. Hill, 415 So. 2d 20 (Fla.1982), to allow intentional interspousal tort claims because the doctrine is necessary to protect family unity and resources.
To allow a tort claim against the decedent spouse’s estate would only add a unique factor to probate of an estate which would not be allowable if the decedent party were living. This could adversely affect dependent family beneficiaries, particularly minor children.
We reject modification of the interspousal immunity doctrine in this circumstance, answer the question in the affirmative, and approve the district court of appeal decision.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, OVERTON, ALDERMAN and McDONALD, JJ., concur. SUNDBERG, C. J., and ADKINS, J, dissent.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sturiano v. Martin Brooks Ad Litem of the Estate of Vito Sturiano, 523 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1988)…e deceased spouse who died as a result of the accident, and whose negligence proximately caused such injuries.” I [*1132] would answer that question, as rephrased, in the negative, and to the extent necessary, I would recede from Roberts v. Roberts, 414 So. 2d 190 (Fla.1982). . In Snowten v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 475 So. 2d 1211 (Fla.1985), the certified question "[i]s the doctrine of interspousal immunity waived, to the extent of available liability insurance, when the action is for a neg…
-
Dressler v. Tubbs, 435 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 1983)…not be applied to the factual situation here. Husband and wife are dead. There is no suit between spouses, just as there is no longer any marital unit to preserve. Nor does our holding in this case run counter to the decision in Roberts v. Roberts, 414 So. 2d 190 (Fla.1982). Roberts involved a wife suing her husband’s estate for damages arising from an intentional tort he had committed upon her during the marriage. This is clearly not a wrongful death action and the person bringing the suit is the very perso…
-
Martin Brooks ad Litem of the Estate of Vito Sturiano v. Sturiano, 497 So. 2d 976 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986)…s, but the trial court, without objection, has reduced it to those policy limits. The appellant contends that the final word on this subject has already been spoken by our supreme court and relies on Snowten, 475 So. 2d at 1211, Roberts v. Roberts, 414 So. 2d 190 (Fla.1982), and Raisen v. Raisen, 379 So. 2d 352 (Fla.1979), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 886, 101 S.Ct. 240, 66 L.Ed.2d 111 (1980). The appellee claims that Dressier v. Tubbs, 435 So. 2d 792 (Fla.1983), and Ard v. Ard, 414 So. 2d 1066 (Fla.1982), point…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sheilah Kristine Hill v. Hill, 415 So. 2d 20 (Fla. 1982)
- Dep't OF Transp. of the State of Fla. v. Leolus L. Wall, 382 So. 2d 376 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980)