BENJAMIN GORDON, APPELLANT,
v.
HOWARD RUSSELL AND LEONARD RUSSELL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF ANNE GORDON, AND BARBARA RUSSELL, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEES
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.
Benjamin Gordon appeals a summary judgment enforcing a prenuptial agreement he signed with his late wife Anne Gordon, in which he waived any interest in her estate. The court affirmed the agreement's validity under Florida law, rejecting Gordon's claims that the agreement should be governed by New Jersey law or that it was unenforceable due to inadequate asset disclosure.
The prenuptial agreement is valid and enforceable under Florida law. Florida law, not New Jersey law, governs the agreement because the parties' marital relationship and the nature of the dispute fall within Florida's interests. Under Florida law, the agreement is valid regardless of the nature or extent of premarital asset disclosure. Even under New Jersey law, the disclosure provided was adequate because Anne Gordon disclosed over $3 million in assets, Gordon expressly waived further disclosure, and the disclosed amount was extremely close to actual assets.
[1] A prenuptial agreement entered into in another state may be governed by Florida law if its parameters fall within established Florida precedent, even if the agreement was…
[2] Florida law permits the enforcement of prenuptial agreements regardless of the nature or extent of premarital disclosure of assets.
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“Under Florida law the agreement is valid, regardless of the nature or extent of the premarital disclosure of assets.”
Establishes the controlling legal standard under Florida law that governs prenuptial agreements
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBenjamin Gordon and Anne Gordon entered into a prenuptial agreement in New Jersey in 1980. Anne Gordon disclosed assets exceeding three million dollar…
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 Prenuptial Agreement Validity cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, Judge.
Appellant Benjamin Gordon seeks review of a summary final judgment upholding, under Florida law, a prenuptial agreement entered into in New Jersey in which Gordon waived any interest in the estate of his late wife, Anne Gordon.
First, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the prenuptial agreement at issue here fell within the parameters of Gillen v. United Services Automobile Association, 300 So. 2d 3 (Fla.1974) and Gustafson v. Jensen, 515 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) and was therefore governed by the law of Florida, notwithstanding that the prenuptial agreement was signed in New Jersey. While we acknowledge that the Florida Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed its adherence to the doctrine of lex loci contractus, Sturiano v. Brooks, 523 So. 2d 1126, 1129-30 (Fla.1988), we find no indication that the court intended to overrule its earlier decision in Gillen.
The facts involved in the instant case are closely analogous, in our view, to those involved in Gillen. See also Gustafson, 515 So. 2d at 1300.
Under Florida law the agreement is valid, regardless of the nature or extent of the premarital disclosure of assets. See § 732.702(2), Fla.Stat. (1989).
Second, the New Jersey cases relied on by appellant require asset disclosure prior to entry into a prenuptial agreement, as a condition to enforcing the agreement in a matrimonial context. See DeLorean v. DeLorean, 211 N.J.Super. 432, 511 A. 2d 1257 (Ch.Div.1986); D’Onofrio v. D’Onofrio, 200 N.J.Super. 361, 491 A. 2d 752 (App.Div.1985); Marschall v. Marschall, 195 N.J.Super. 16, 477 A. 2d 833 (Ch.Div.1984).
Assuming arguendo that in 1980, at the time the instant prenuptial agreement was entered into, New Jersey law required full asset disclosure as a condition to enforcement in a probate context, we think those requirements were met. Here, Anne Gordon disclosed that her assets had a value in excess of three million dollars. Appellant represented that he had assets in excess of $200,000. Both represented that they had sufficient assets to provide for their respective lifetime security without contribution from the other party, and expressly “waive[d] any right to a more complete disclosure of the other party’s assets.” The three million dollar amount disclosed by Anne Gordon is extremely close to the asset amount reflected in the probate proceeding, and the appellant seeks $1,500,-000.00, representing exactly one-half of the amount disclosed.
We are unable to perceive that the appellant has been misled in any fashion. The aggregate asset disclosure was extremely accurate and appellant expressly waived any right to a more detailed accounting. On these facts it is our conclusion that relief would be denied under the law of New Jersey as well as the law of Florida.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. OF Luis Joaquin Nicole Santos v. Nicole-Sauri, 648 So. 2d 277 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995)…limited to automobile insurance policies and did not generally apply the lex loci contractus doctrine to conflicts questions involving other types of contracts. The Third District has also distinguished the holding of Sturiano in Gordon v. Russell, 561 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), and applied the law of Florida in construing a contract, notwithstanding the fact that the contract was entered into in New Jersey. I would adopt the significant relationship test which is, as Justice Grimes stated in Sturiano,…
-
Roach v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 892 So. 2d 1107 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)…t 1129-30; see N.J. Mfrs. Ins. Co. v. Woodward, 456 So. 2d 552, 553 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984) (distinguishing Gillen on the ground that the insureds did not inform the insurance company that their move to Florida was permanent); see also Gordon v. Russell, 561 So. 2d 603, 604 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (observing that Sturiano did not overrule Gillen). In this case, disputed issues of fact existed as to whether State Farm, through its Indiana agent, was on reasonable notice of Florida’s connection to Mr. Hodges’ Oldsmobile…
-
Paris v. Joseph, 329 So. 3d 775 (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…re because the insured vehicle and the insured remained in Florida. Id. at 6-7. In deciding that the public policy exception applied in this case, the probate court reasoned that cases upon which the children relied – Gordon 5 v. Russell, 561 So. 2d 603 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990), and Gustafson v. Jensen, 515 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987) – purportedly held that Florida law applied in determining the prenuptial agreements’ validity because the parties in those cases had meager connections with the juri…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Sturiano v. Martin Brooks Ad Litem of the Estate of Vito Sturiano, 523 So. 2d 1126 (Fla. 1988)
- Gillen v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 300 So. 2d 3 (Fla. 1974)
- Anne-Lise Gustafson v. Dorrit Jensen, 515 So. 2d 1298 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)