Court Opinion

ID: 9556226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-16 16:06:33.728757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:34.554358
License: Public Domain

Third District Court of Appeal
                               State of Florida

                        Opinion filed August 16, 2023.
       Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

                            ________________

                            No. 3D21-2180
                        Lower Tribunal No. 19-836
                          ________________

                         Frances Haskin, etc.,
                                  Appellant,

                                     vs.

                         Michael Haskin, et al.,
                                 Appellees.

     An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Bertila Soto,
Judge.

     The Billbrough Firm, and G. Bart Billbrough; Paul M. Cowan &
Associates, P.A., and Paul M. Cowan and Manuel A. Celaya, for appellant.

     Lee & Amtzis, P.L., and Eric Lee (Boca Raton), for appellees.

Before HENDON, GORDO and BOKOR, JJ.

     BOKOR, J.
      Frances Haskin 1 appeals the trial court’s order granting partial

summary judgment in favor of Eugene Haskin’s children from his first

marriage: Michael Haskin, Lee Haskin, and Cindy Henick (collectively, the

“Haskin children”). The salient issue presented to the trial court, and the one

which Frances claims the trial court got wrong, involves an issue of

interpretation of a provision of the marital settlement agreement between

Eugene and his ex-wife, Judith Haskin. Frances takes issue with the trial

court’s conclusion that the plain language of the marital settlement

agreement permitted Eugene to add additional offspring as pro rata

beneficiaries of 50% of his estate, but it also prevented Eugene from entirely

removing the Haskin children as beneficiaries of his will. Frances argues

that the marital settlement agreement only required that Eugene add the

Haskin children in the initial will, but that he was free to amend the will and

remove the Haskin children.

      A marital settlement agreement is just that—a settlement, examined

under the rules of contract. The parties could have bargained for and split

1
 Frances appeals in her individual capacity, as trustee of the Eugene Haskin
and Frances Haskin Revocable Trust, and as personal representative of
Eugene Haskin’s estate. We have jurisdiction over an order that finally
determines “a right or obligation of an interested person as defined in the
Florida Probate Code,” including an order that grants “entitlement, or
determine[s] the persons to whom distribution should be made.” Fla. R. App.
P. 9.170(b)(5).

                                      2
assets however they felt appropriate. Here, the bargain evinced by the plain

language requires the Haskin children to remain as beneficiaries.

Accordingly, as more fully explained herein, we agree with the trial court’s

analysis of the marital settlement agreement and affirm the order on appeal.

                                 BACKGROUND

      In 1953, Eugene married his first wife, Judith, in New Jersey. Together,

they had four children: Cindy, Lee, Richard, and Michael. In 1969, Judith

filed for divorce. A year later, Eugene and Judith entered into a marital

settlement agreement, which was approved and incorporated into a New

Jersey divorce judgment. In 2000, the divorce judgment was domesticated

in Florida.

      The marital settlement agreement provides, in relevant part:

      ARTICLE XIII – WILLS

      ....

      B. The Husband agrees to promptly make and execute a Last
      Will and Testament containing such provisions as he may deem
      proper except that such Will shall contain a provision
      providing for the distribution of not less than 50% of his net
      estate to be divided equally among all of the Husband’s then
      living children. The term “children” as used hereunder shall
      include both natural and adopted children of the Husband. The
      provisions of this article are not to be deemed to require the
      Husband to include as such beneficiaries any children other
      than the children of the Husband and Wife but the
      provisions hereof permit such inclusion at the option of the
      Husband.

                                      3
(Emphasis added).

      Following his divorce from Judith, Eugene married Frances, and

together they had one child. Years later, in 2014, Eugene executed the

operative will, revoking all previous wills, testaments, and codicils and

disinheriting Cindy, Lee, and Michael as well as their lineal descendants. 2

      Following Eugene’s death in 2017, the Haskin children filed an action

below for breach of contract and specific performance, asserting they were

the intended beneficiaries of the marital settlement agreement and that

Eugene’s will failed to satisfy the requirement of Article XIII, paragraph B of

the marital settlement agreement. Relying on the language in the provision

and the fact Eugene breached the martial settlement agreement, the Haskin

children moved for partial summary judgment. The trial court granted the

motion, finding that the Haskin children were entitled to a share of Eugene’s

estate and specific performance based on Eugene’s breach.

      On appeal, Frances argues that the marital settlement agreement only

required Eugene to add the Haskin children to the will but was silent as to

Eugene’s ability to remove the children from any subsequent will or

amendment.      However, the plain language of the sentence at issue,

2
 The operative will didn’t disinherit Richard, one of the four children of
Eugene and Frances, who is not a party to this appeal.

                                      4
particularly in the context of the entire operative paragraph of the marital

settlement agreement, leads to the same conclusion reached by the trial

court.

         We interpret a marital settlement agreement like any other contract.

See Ferguson v. Ferguson, 54 So. 3d 553, 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“A

marital settlement agreement entered into by the parties . . . is a contract,

subject to the laws of contract.”). Significantly, “[w]e give terms contained in

such agreements their plain meaning and do not disturb them unless those

terms are ambiguous.” Fendrich v. Murphy, 353 So. 3d 1194, 1196 (Fla. 4th

DCA 2023); see Pol v. Pol, 705 So. 2d 51, 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (“[A] court

cannot rewrite the clear and unambiguous contract terms of a voluntary

contract.”); see also City of Pompano Beach v. Beatty, 222 So. 3d 598, 600

n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“[A] true ambiguity exists only when the language

at issue ‘is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation.’”)

(citations omitted).3

3
  Frances claims New Jersey law applies in interpreting the contract. We
need not decide the issue, because Florida and New Jersey apply the same
relevant principles of contract interpretation. See, e.g., Barila v. Bd. of Educ.
of Cliffside Park, 230 A.3d 243, 255 (N.J. 2020) (“The plain language of the
contract is the cornerstone of the interpretive inquiry; ‘when the intent of the
parties is plain and the language is clear and unambiguous, a court must
enforce the agreement as written, unless doing so would lead to an absurd
result.’”) (citations omitted); see also Washington Constr. Co. v. Spinella, 84

                                       5
      We determine no ambiguity exists and the provision at issue can only

lead to one interpretation—fifty percent of Eugene’s estate must be divided

equally among Cindy, Lee, Richard, and Michael.            That the provision

contains no express language of irrevocability doesn’t change this analysis.

That isn’t to say that the parties couldn’t agree to a provision whereby the

settlor would have been free to amend subsequent wills; they just didn’t do

that here. We know that because we are required to read the sentence at

issue within the context of the entire agreement. See People's Tr. Ins. Co.

v. Lamolli, 352 So. 3d 890, 895 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022) (“‘[R]ules of construction

require that no word or part of an agreement is to be treated as a redundancy

or surplusage if any meaning, reasonable and consistent with other parts,

can be given to it[.]’”) (citation omitted); see also Famiglio v. Famiglio, 279

So. 3d 736, 740 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) (“Provisions in a contract should be

construed in the context of the entire agreement and read in a way that gives

effect to all of the contract’s provisions.    Courts should not employ an

interpretation of a contractual provision that would lead to an absurd result.”)

(citations and internal quotations omitted).

A.2d 617, 619 (N.J. 1951) (explaining that all parts of a writing shall, if
possible, be given effect).

                                       6
      After the sentence requiring Eugene to execute a will splitting 50% of

his estate equally among his four children with Judith, the agreement

explicitly contemplates the possibility of Eugene having future offspring.

Accordingly, the parties contracted for the fact that additional, future offspring

could be added to the will at Eugene’s discretion, entitled to split the 50%

share pro rata with the existing children. If we were to agree with Frances’

interpretation, we would be committing two sins of contract interpretation—

creating an ambiguity where none exists and rendering the provision

allowing Eugene to split the 50% share with future children meaningless. In

other words, if Eugene had the unfettered right to amend his will and remove

Judith’s children, that sentence allowing additional children to be added

would be, at best, mere surplusage, or, more likely, create an ambiguity

where none exists. On the other hand, the trial court’s interpretation gives

meaning to every portion of the paragraph at issue in line with the plain and

unambiguous text.

      Affirmed.

      GORDO, J., concurs.

                                        7
                                                                        3D21-2180
                                                                   Haskin v. Haskin

          HENDON, J., dissenting.

          I respectfully dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the trial court’s

order granting partial summary judgment in favor of three of Eugene Haskin’s

children from his first marriage with Judith Haskin (“Judith”)—Michael

Haskin, Lee Haskin, and Cindy Henick (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).

     I.      FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

             A. Eugene and his Former Wife’s Marriage

          Eugene and Judith married in 1953 in New Jersey, producing four

children during their marriage—Cindy, Lee, Richard, and Michael—who

were still minors when the Former Wife filed for divorce in 1969 in New

Jersey.       On April 9, 1970, Eugene and Judith entered into a marital

settlement agreement in New Jersey 4 (“Settlement Agreement”), which

contained the following relevant provision:

                ARTICLE XIII – WILLS

                ....

                B. The Husband agrees to promptly make and execute a
          Last Will and Testament containing such provisions as he may
          deem proper except that such Will shall contain a provision
          providing for the distribution of not less than 50% of his net estate

4
    Cindy is referred to as Cynthia in the Settlement Agreement.

                                           8
      to be divided equally among all of the Husband’s then living
      children. The term “children” as used hereunder shall include
      both natural and adopted children of the Husband. The
      provisions of this article are not to be deemed to require the
      Husband to include as such beneficiaries any children other than
      the children of the Husband and Wife but the provisions hereof
      permit such inclusion at the option of the Husband.

(“Article XIII(B)”).

      On August 26, 1970, the New Jersey court entered a Divorce

Judgment, incorporating Eugene and Judith’s Settlement Agreement. In

2000, the New Jersey Divorce Judgment was domesticated in Florida.

          B. Eugene and France’s Relationship and Marriage

      Eugene and Frances married shortly after Eugene and Judith’s divorce

was finalized.         However, prior to Eugene entering in the Settlement

Agreement on April 9, 1970, Frances gave birth to Eugene’s “natural” child,

Eric, in early March 1970. Eugene also adopted Frances’s son, Gregory,

from her prior marriage.

          C. Eugene Disinherits the Plaintiffs in 2014

      On October 30, 2014, Eugene, who was then eighty-five years old, and

Frances executed the Eugene Haskin & Frances Haskin Revocable Trust

(“Trust”), transferring certain assets into the Trust. On that same date,

Eugene also executed his Last Will and Testament (“Will”), appointing

Frances as his personal representative; revoking all previous wills,

                                        9
testaments, and codicils; and providing that his estate would be inherited by

the Trust. Both the Trust and the Will recognized that Eugene has four

children from his prior marriage—Cindy, Lee, Richard, and Michael—but that

no provision was being made for Cindy, Lee, Michael, and their lineal

descendants.

           D. The Underlying Actions

        Following Eugene’s death in January 2017, Frances, as Eugene’s

personal representative, filed a probate action, seeking to probate Eugene’s

2014 Will. The Plaintiffs filed a separate action in the civil division, which

was later consolidated into the probate action. The Plaintiffs’ operative

complaint named as defendants Frances, individually, as trustee of the Trust,

and as Eugene’s personal representative, Richard, Eric, and Gregory

(collectively, “Defendants”). 5 The Plaintiffs asserted, among other things,

that they were third party beneficiaries of the Settlement Agreement, and that

Eugene failed to satisfy the requirement of Article XIII(B) of the Settlement

Agreement. The Plaintiffs asserted several counts, including breach of the

Settlement Agreement, seeking monetary damages and a constructive trust

over assets transferred into the Trust.

        During the litigation, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary

5
    The operative complaint was also filed against several nominal defendants.

                                       10
judgment, asserting they are entitled to partial summary judgment for liability

as to their breach of contract claims. The parties agreed that Article XIII(B)

of the Settlement Agreement was unambiguous, but they attributed different

meanings to the provision. In essence, the Plaintiffs asserted that once

Eugene executed a will that satisfied Article XIII(B), he could not revoke that

will and execute a subsequent will. As such, the Plaintiffs and Richard were

each entitled to 12.5% of Eugene’s estate. In contrast, Frances asserted

that Eugene was not prohibited from later revoking a will that he executed to

satisfy Article XIII(B), and therefore, he did not breach the Settlement

Agreement when he executed the 2014 Will that disinherited the Plaintiffs.

      The trial court conducted a hearing on the Plaintiffs’ motion for partial

summary judgment, ruling in favor of the Plaintiffs. In its written order, the

trial court found that pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Eugene was

required to include a provision in his will “providing for the distribution of not

less than 50% of his net estate to be divided equally among all of the

Husband’s then living children.” The trial court’s order further provides that

Eugene breached the Settlement Agreement because the 2014 Will did not

include such a provision, and “[t]here is no factual issue created as to

whether the provision in the [Settlement Agreement] was revocable.” Finally,

the trial court ruled as follows:

                                       11
      Plaintiffs are entitled to specific performance of the [Settlement
      Agreement], as incorporated in the New Jersey Divorce
      Judgment and later domesticated in Florida. The Plaintiffs are
      entitled to specific performance of the [Settlement Agreement];
      the Plaintiffs are each entitled to 12.5% of Eugene’s net Estate.
      Pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 733.707, the assets Eugene transferred
      to the Trust (listed on Schedule 2.2) are also subject to the
      Plaintiffs’ claims against the Estate. Finally, this Court also
      imposes a constructive trust over the separate property of
      Eugene transferred to the Trust listed on Schedule 2.2.

      The Defendants filed a motion for rehearing. Among other things, they

argued that each of Eugene’s children from his first marriage were not

entitled to 12.5% of the Trust corpus because at the time of Eugene’s death,

he had six living children. The Defendants further argued that the trial court

had not addressed the motion for determination of which state’s law

controlled the contractual issues raised in this case.

      Frances, individually, as trustee of the Trust, and as personal

representative of Eugene’s estate, appealed the October 5, 2021 order

granting the Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. This Court

granted Frances’s unopposed motion to hold the appeal in abeyance

pending disposition of the motion for rehearing filed in lower tribunal.

      Following a hearing, the trial court entered an order denying the

Defendants’ motion for rehearing, and in the order, the trial court also denied

the Defendants’ Motion for Order Determining Choice of Law filed on

September 7, 2021, stating that Florida law applies to all claims and

                                      12
defenses in this matter. Thereafter, this Court temporarily stayed the trial

court’s proceedings pending further order of this Court.

   II. ANALYSIS

      The majority disagrees with Frances’s contention on appeal that the

trial court erred by granting partial summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs

on their breach of contract claims. As I agree with Frances’s contention, I

would reverse the order under review as set forth in this dissent.

      The Settlement Agreement entered into by Eugene and Judith, which

was incorporated into the Divorce Judgment, is a contract. See Ferguson v.

Ferguson, 54 So. 3d 553, 556 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011) (“A marital settlement

agreement entered into by the parties and ratified by a final judgment is a

contract, subject to the laws of contract.”).        “Contracts are voluntary

undertakings, and contracting parties are free to bargain for—and specify—

the terms and conditions of their agreement.” Okeechobee Resorts, L.L.C.

v. E Z Cash Pawn, Inc., 145 So. 3d 989, 993 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014). Further,

“a court cannot rewrite the clear and unambiguous contract terms of a

voluntary contract.” Pol v. Pol, 705 So. 51, 53 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997); see also

Int’l Expositions, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach, 274 So. 2d 29, 30-31 (Fla. 3d

DCA 1973) (“The law is quite clear that courts may not rewrite, alter, or add

to the terms of a written agreement between the parties and may not

                                       13
substitute their judgment for that of the parties in order to relieve one from

an alleged hardship of an improvident bargain.”).

      In the underlying action, the parties argued, among other things, that

Article XIII(B) of the Divorce Agreement was unambiguous, but they ascribed

different meanings to Article XIII(B). See City of Pompano Beach, Fla. v.

Beatty, 222 So. 3d 598, 600 n.1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2017) (“Nor is the provision

ambiguous simply because the litigants ascribe different meanings to the

language employed—something that occurs every time the interpretation of

a contract is litigated. . . . But a true ambiguity exists only when the language

at issue is reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation.”) (internal

quotation marks and citations omitted). As stated earlier, the Plaintiffs

asserted that once Eugene executed a will that satisfied Article XIII(B), he

could not revoke that will and execute a subsequent will. As such, the

Plaintiffs asserted that they, along with Richard, were each entitled to 12.5%

of Eugene’s estate. In contrast, Frances asserted that Eugene was not

prohibited from later revoking a will that he executed to satisfy Article XIII(B),

and therefore, he did not breach the Settlement Agreement when he

executed the 2014 Will that did not provide for the Plaintiffs.

      The provision set forth in Article XIII(B) merely required Eugene to

“make and execute” a will that satisfied the provision. Moreover, Article

                                       14
XIII(B) did not require Eugene to maintain such a will until the day he died

or that a will that complied with Article XIII(B) was irrevocable. Clearly, if that

is what Eugene and Judith wanted, they easily could have included such a

provision in their Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement reflects

that Eugene and Judith included provisions that protected Judith and/or her

children with Eugene in the future.          For example, Eugene and Judith

contemplated additional child support and alimony in the event that Eugene’s

income increased, including a formula to compute the increased child

support and alimony. Further, the provision relating to Eugene’s obligation

to maintain life insurance reflects the life insurance policy must designate

Judith as an “irrevocable beneficiary” unless certain future events occur.

Eugene and Judith gave great thought to the provisions in their Settlement

Agreement, and chose not to include a provision prohibiting Eugene from

later revoking or changing a will that he made and executed to satisfy Article

XIII(B).

      The majority opinion argues that based on its de novo interpretation of

Article XIII(B), as a whole, fifty percent of Eugene’s estate must be divided

equally between his four children with Judith—Cindy, Lee, Richard, and

Michael. More specifically, the majority asserts:

      After the sentence requiring Eugene to execute a will splitting
      50% of his estate equally among his four children with Judith, the

                                        15
      agreement explicitly contemplates the possibility of Eugene
      having future offspring. Accordingly, the parties contracted for
      the fact that additional, future offspring could be added to the will
      at Eugene’s discretion, entitled to split the 50% share pro rata
      with the existing children. If we were to agree with Frances’s
      interpretation, we would be committing two sins of contract
      interpretation—creating an ambiguity where none exists and
      rendering the provision allowing Eugene to split the 50% share
      with future children meaningless. In other words, if Eugene had
      the unfettered right to amend his will, and remove Judith’s
      children, that sentence allowing additional children to be added
      would be, at best, mere surplusage, or, more likely, create an
      ambiguity where none exists.

      I disagree with the majority’s interpretation of Article XIII(B). In the first

sentence of the Settlement Agreement, Eugene was only required to

“promptly make and execute a Last Will and Testament containing such

provisions as he may deem proper except that such Will shall contain a

provisions providing for the distribution of not less than 50% of his net estate

to be divided equally among all of the Husband’s then living children.”

(emphasis added). He was not required to “make, execute, and maintain,”

such a will. The majority argues that Eugene was required to execute a will

splitting 50% of his estate equally among his four children with Judith. The

majority’s interpretation ignores the second sentence of Article XIII(B) which

defines “children” as “includ[ing] both natural and adopted children of the

Husband.” Thus, based on the facts of this case—specifically, Frances

giving birth to Eugene’s “natural” child, Eric, in early March 1970, Eugene

                                        16
had a least five living children when he executed the Settlement Agreement

in April 1970, which was incorporated in the New Jersey Divorce Judgment.6

      Next, the majority also focuses on the third (and last) sentence of

Article XIII(B), which provides: “The provisions of this article are not to be

deemed to require the Husband to include as such beneficiaries any children

other than the children of the Husband and Wife but the provisions hereof

permit such inclusion at the option of the Husband.” At the very least, the

third sentence is at odds with the first and second sentences of Article VIII(B).

Based on the definition of “children,” Eugene was required to include Eric in

his initial will as Eric is his “natural” child. However, under the third sentence,

Eugene only had to include his and Judith’s four children but could include

Eric. Nonetheless, the third sentence does not somehow require Eugene to

maintain the will that he “promptly ma[de] and execute[d]” following his

divorce from Judith that satisfied Article XIII(B). Basically, after he made and

executed the initial will, there was nothing in the Settlement Agreement that

stopped him from later revoking that initial will and entering into a subsequent

will with provisions of his choosing. Thus, based on the above analysis,

Eugene did not breach Article XIII(B) of the Settlement Agreement by

6
 At some point, Eugene also adopted Frances’s son from her first marriage,
Gregory, but is unclear when this occurred.

                                        17
subsequently executing the 2014 Will disinheriting three of his and Judith’s

children.

      Accordingly, I would reverse the trial court’s order granting the

Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as to their breach of contract

claims and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this dissent.

                                     18