Musico v. Musico

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Musico v. Musico

422 So. 2d 31, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22131

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 8, 1982

DocketNo. 81-1410

StatusPublished

This text of 422 So. 2d 31 (Musico v. Musico) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Musico v. Musico, 422 So. 2d 31, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22131 (Fla. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal emanates from a probate proceeding in which appellant/surviving spouse contested the validity of an antenupital agreement executed in New York. The trial court upheld the agreement, finding that appellant had entered into the agreement knowingly, aware of its meaning and significance, and without duress. Although the testimony on this issue was in conflict, the trial court’s findings are supported by substantial competent evidence. Moreover, we conclude that appellant’s allegations of procedural irregularities in the execution of the agreement are without merit. See Weintraub v. Weintraub, 417 So.2d 629 (1982); Flagship National Bank of Miami v. King, 418 So.2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1982); Estate of Garcia v. Garcia, 399 So.2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA), petition for review denied, 407 So.2d 1103 (Fla.1981); In re Stegman’s Estate, 42 Misc.2d 273, 247 N.Y.S.2d 727 (Surr.Ct.1964); In re Maul’s Will, 176 Misc. 170, 26 N.Y.S.2d 847 (Surr. Ct.), aff’d with opinion, 262 A.D. 941, 29 N.Y.S.2d 429 (App.Div.1941), aff’d without opinion, 287 N.Y. 694, 39 N.E.2d 301 (1942).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

BERANEK, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

This appeal emanates from a probate proceeding in which appellant/surviving spouse contested the validity of an antenupital agreement executed in New York. The trial court upheld the agreement, finding that appellant had entered into the agreement knowingly, aware of its meaning and significance, and without duress. Although the testimony on this issue was in conflict, the trial court’s findings are supported by substantial competent evidence. Moreover, we conclude that appellant’s allegations of procedural irregularities in the execution of the agreement are without merit. See Weintraub v. Weintraub, 417 So.2d 629 (1982); Flagship National Bank of Miami v. King, 418 So.2d 275 (Fla. 3d DCA, 1982); Estate of Garcia v. Garcia, 399 So.2d 486 (Fla. 3d DCA), petition for review denied, 407 So.2d 1103 (Fla.1981); In re Stegman’s Estate, 42 Misc.2d 273, 247 N.Y.S.2d 727 (Surr.Ct.1964); In re Maul’s Will, 176 Misc. 170, 26 N.Y.S.2d 847 (Surr. Ct.), aff’d with opinion, 262 A.D. 941, 29 N.Y.S.2d 429 (App.Div.1941), aff’d without opinion, 287 N.Y. 694, 39 N.E.2d 301 (1942).

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

BERANEK, HURLEY and WALDEN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

422 So. 2d 31, 1982 Fla. App. LEXIS 22131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/musico-v-musico-fladistctapp-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack