Wilson`s result is really unfortunate. The husband wanted his wife to have property that matched his vote. By focusing on the woman`s (manifestly flawed) mechanism for obtaining her inheritance, the court ignored the man`s intention and focused rigidly on the marital agreement that neither the husband nor the wife wanted to control the result. According to the logic of the court, the result could have been different if the woman had just signed the trust, because the year of marriage could then have been considered changed. For a pre-marital contract, it is not necessary to enter into a contrary agreement, with the exception of the arrival of the marriage itself. In the case of post-puptial agreements, the examination to support a valid post-up agreement must be more than the stay in the marriage. Examples of consideration for post-marital agreements are: (i) the obligation to assist the other spouse by one spouse and the right of the other spouse to impose this assistance; (ii) mutual promises that involve various rights or obligations of the parties (for example.B. discharge by one spouse in the interest of the other spouse`s estate); (iii) reciprocal termination of a previous agreement, for example. B of a marriage agreement. Depending on the concrete circumstances, a premarital or post-marital agreement may be annulled in the following situations: any changes to the marriage agreement had to be made in writing and signed by both the wife and the crook.
The Court of Appeal accepted the court and upheld the decision. The Tribunal also argued that the trust agreement could not be construed as an amendment to the matrimonial agreement because it had not been signed by a man and a woman. Florida`s status 61.079 (6) provides that after marriage, a [marital] agreement can only be amended, revoked or abandoned by a written agreement signed by the parties. In addition, the court held that “even if husband marries a will gift, the waiver of the voting share would still be effective. Therefore, if the crook intended to give a will gift to the woman, he could have done so by will or kodicil, without relying on a share of the vote and in particular on the requirements of the status of the votes. If you are engaged and considering a marriage pact, you should consider seven things: if you enter into a marriage pact, the parties are generally designed to protect their property in the event of a marriage breakdown. Many people are unaware that marital agreements can also protect your property in the event of death. Such provisions can have a significant impact on the future financial status of the surviving spouse. However, this part of a marriage agreement may not have been fully considered by the parties and may result in costly litigation with the surviving spouse and the deceased`s estate (i.e., the deceased). Although the legal analysis is correct, the result is absurd.
Wilson v Wilson offers a story of warning for estate planners and ammunition for anyone who wants to challenge a post-wedding gift that offers more to a spouse than was provided in a marriage deal. A pre-judged contract may be invalid in certain circumstances, such as. B under involuntary or forced regime, or if it is, among other things, the proceeds of fraud. It is likely that an invalid agreement involving a waiver of electoral actions would not be part of this provision. If the husband had drawn up a will that had given his wife 30% of his fortune, the gift would have been maintained because 1) it was made in a will, as stipulated in the marriage agreement, and 2) did not refer to the share of the vote to which the wife had renounced.