LILYAN F. TIMBLE, APPELLANT/CROSS-APPELLEE,
v.
FRANK B. TIMBLE, APPELLEE/CROSS-APPELLANT
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.
In this Florida divorce case, the Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's final judgment of dissolution for both the wife's appeal and the husband's cross-appeal. The court upheld the trial court's decision to deny the wife's claim for enhancement of the husband's stock based on an antenuptial agreement that gave the husband full control over his stock interests and required both parties to disclaim any marital rights in the other's property.
The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the wife's claim for enhancement of the husband's stock, finding that the antenuptial agreement was valid and effectively disclaimed any marital rights in the husband's stock interests. The agreement's provisions granting the husband full control and requiring mutual disclaimer of property rights controlled the outcome.
[1] An antenuptial agreement may provide that a spouse retains full rights to manage, convey, and dispose of stock, thereby excluding any enhancement of that stock from marit…
[2] Parties to an antenuptial agreement may disclaim, release, and relinquish any right, claim, or estate they might acquire in the other's property by reason of the marriage…
Previewing 2 of 3 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“Husband is given full rights, liberty, authority and as fully in all respects the same as he would have if not married to use, enjoy, manage, convey, bequeath, mortgage, grant, sell, invest, reinvest, alienate and dispose of all and every part of any stock or other interest, or security he owns directly or indirectly, or may hereafter acquire in Headco Industries.”
The antenuptial agreement provision granting the husband complete control over his stock interests, which formed the basis for denying the wife's enhancement claim.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLilyan and Frank Timble were parties to an antenuptial agreement that granted the husband full rights to manage, use, sell, and dispose of any stock o…
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 Antenuptial Agreement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from the final judgment of dissolution by the wife and a cross-appeal by the husband. We affirm both.
Although the wife raises several issues, we wish to discuss briefly only one. The trial court appropriately denied the wife’s claim based upon enhancement of the husband’s stock because of the antenuptial agreement of the parties which provided:
Husband is given full rights, liberty, authority and as fully in all respects the same as he would have if not married to use, enjoy, manage, convey, bequeath, mortgage, grant, sell, invest, reinvest, alienate and dispose of all and every part of any stock or other interest, or security he owns directly or indirectly, or may hereafter acquire in Headco Industries. The Agreement further provided that: Each party shall and does hereby disclaim, release, quitclaim and relinquish to the other, and their heirs ... all and every right, claim, and estate ... of every kind and character ... which either might, would or could have, hold or acquire in, to, or upon the above described property of the other by reason of said marriage or by reason of being or having been the husband or the wife of the other. Neither the trial court, nor the parties could have been aware of Watford v. Wat-ford, 605 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992), decided after the final judgment and after the parties’ briefs were filed. While that decision would have affected our view of the trial court’s final judgment had there been no antenuptial agreement, the existence of the agreement moots any language of the final judgment which characterizes the passive nature of the enhancement and its exclusion as a marital asset. The still viable language of the final judgment is that governing part thereof based upon the parties’ agreement.
GLICKSTEIN, C.J., ANSTEAD, J., and OWEN, WILLIAM C„ Jr., Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Stern v. Stern, 636 So. 2d 735 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993)…cluded that, based on the prenuptial agreement, the former husband waived the right to share in any enhancement in value of the wife’s interest in her businesses. See Cameron v. Cameron, 591 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 5th DCA 1991); See also Timble v. Timble, 616 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993). It follows, however, that the trial court erred in assigning the $190,000 in enhanced value to the former wife as part of her equitable distribution. The fact that the former husband waived his right to this asset meant it was n…
-
Hahamovitch v. Hahamovitch, 133 So. 3d 1008 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)…imony and the ambiguity of the prenuptial agreement — that the prenuptial agreement was intended to shield the husband’s plumbing company but did not encompass marital assets acquired after the parties’ marriage. Id. Similarly, in Timble v. Timble, 616 So. 2d 1188, 1189 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), we held that the trial court appropriately denied the wife’s claim for enhancement of the value of the husband’s stock in a company, where the prenuptial agreement provided that each party released any claim to the [*1015]…
-
Witowski v. Witowski, 758 So. 2d 1181 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000)…ere is silent as to any marital enhancement or future contribution to the husband’s retirement account, and therefore does not specifically protect marital contributions. Like the Fifth District in Cameron, the Fourth District, in Timble v. Timble, 616 So. 2d 1188 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993), held the antenuptial agreement protected the stock in question because of the specific language in the agreement: Husband is given full rights, liberty, authority and as fully in all respects the same as he would have if not ma…
Authorities Cited
- Watford v. Watford, 605 So. 2d 1313 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)