IN RE ESTATE OF JACOB GUZE, A/K/A JACK GUZE, DECEASED. DR. SAMUEL B. GUZE, EXECUTOR, APPELLANT,
v.
MARIE GUZE, APPELLEE
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 appellate court reversed a county judge's order invalidating an antenuptial agreement, holding that the county judge lacked jurisdiction to determine the validity of such agreements. The court clarified that while county judges have jurisdiction over dower assignments, the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction to test the validity of antenuptial agreements.
No, the County Judges' Court did not have the jurisdiction to void the antenuptial agreement. While county judges have jurisdiction to assign dower, the circuit court has exclusive jurisdiction to test the validity of antenuptial agreements.
“Although jurisdiction to assign dower rests exclusively in the County Judges' Court (§§ 733.11-14, Fla.Stat, F. S.A.; Coleman v. Davis, Fla.App.1958, 106 So. 2d 81), the jurisdiction to test the validity of an antenuptial agreement is in the Circuit Court.”
This quote establishes the court's reasoning regarding the division of jurisdiction between county and circuit courts concerning dower and antenuptial agreements.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe deceased's executor appealed an order from the County Judges' Court that voided an antenuptial agreement. This agreement would have prevented the …
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 Election To Take Dower cases and more on FLexlaw
The proceedings in the County Judges’ Court resulted in an order voiding an ante-nuptial agreement which would have denied to the wife of the deceased any share in the estate. The question presented, and ruled upon, arose out of the wife’s election to take dower as against the will of the decedent. This claim was allowed by the County Judge who found that the antenuptial agreement was invalid due to the failure of the deceased to make a full and fair disclosure of his assets prior to the execution of the agreement.
Although jurisdiction to assign dower rests exclusively in the County Judges’ Court (§§ 733.11-14, Fla.Stat, F. S.A.; Coleman v. Davis, Fla.App.1958, 106 So.2d 81), the jurisdiction to test the validity of an antenuptial agreement is in the Circuit Court. See In re Rothman’s Estate, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 607. It has been generally recognized that the validity of deeds (In re Coleman’s Estate, Fla.App. 1958, 103 So.2d 237) and trust agreements (Beke v. Molnar’s Estate, Fla.1955, 82 So.2d 595) is tested in separate proceedings in the Circuit Court.
Accordingly, the order appealed is reversed and the cause is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent herewith.
Reversed and remanded.
CARROLL, CHAS., C. J., and PEARSON, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Miller v. Miller, 151 So. 2d 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 1963)…er. The court denied the motion, whereupon the defendant took this interlocutory appeal. We find that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The circuit court had jurisdiction of the subject matter. See In re Estate of Guze, Fla.App.1959, 109 So. 2d 170; Johnson v. Johnson, Fla.App. 1962, 140 So. 2d 358. As to whether or not the complaint states a cause of action, it is noted that the complaint fails to allege facts to show that there is a justiciable controversy. The complaint does not allege that…
-
In re Est. of Jacob Guze, 114 So. 2d 212 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)…PER CURIAM. In a prior appeal (In re Estate of Guze, Fla.App.1958, 109 So. 2d 170) it was held that the county judge was without jurisdiction to test the validity of an antenuptial agreement. After the issuance of our mandate, the county judge entered an order vacating his prior order without prejudice to the right of the parties…
-
In re Est. of Elizabeth S. White, 212 So. 2d 324 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…to determine the effect of the post-nuptial agreement for the purpose of determining the contestant’s right to attack the probate of the will. This answer renders it unnecessary to decide Question Two. McCAIN and REED, JJ., concur. . Fla.App.1959, 109 So. 2d 170. . Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 607. .Likewise distinguishable because a question of title was involved is In re Brown’s Estate, Fla.App.1961, 134 So. 2d 290.…
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
- In re Est. of Matthew A. Coleman, 103 So. 2d 237 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- Ineyll Coleman v. Davis, 106 So. 2d 81 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958)
- Musetto v. City OF Miami Beach, 82 So. 2d 595 (Fla. 1955)
- In re Est. of William Rothman v. Berk, 104 So. 2d 607 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)