CopyCited 14 times | Published | United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida | 1980 Bankr. LEXIS 4773
...fiat, he had no legal or moral obligation to a dependent simply because there was none in existence. The fact that under the laws of this State, an unborn child is a legally cognizable person for certain purposes, i.e. inheritance, Florida Statutes, § 731.106, is without significance in the context of the present controversy....
CopyCited 2 times | Published | Florida 1st District Court of Appeal | 2001 WL 1230260
...99). The trial court denied Appellant's petition on grounds that Florida law is inapplicable because the nondomiciliary testator did not provide in his will that Florida law would regulate the disposition of his Florida real property, as required by section
731.106(2), Florida Statutes (1999). The trial court concluded the law of the decedent's domicile, Colorado, including its pretermitted spouse statute, regulates the disposition of the decedent's Florida realty. Appellant argues the trial court's construction of section
731.106(2) impermissibly supersedes Florida's common law rule concerning disposition of in-state realty, disregards Florida's strong public policy to protect pretermitted spouses, and misconstrues the proper effect of this section and section
732.301. Appellee, the personal representative of the decedent's estate, argues Florida law is inapplicable based upon the plain wording of section
731.106(2), which controls the disposition of this case. We agree with Appellee and affirm. Section
731.106(2), Florida Statutes (1999), in pertinent part provides: (2) When a nonresident decedent who is a citizen of the United States or a citizen or subject of a foreign country provides in her or his will that the testamentary disposition...
...This case does not hinge on an application of the common law or public policy considerations as advanced by Appellant. The common law `is changed where a statute clearly, unequivocally, and specifically prescribes a different rule of law from a common law rule, as does section 731.106(2)....
...Echarte,
618 So.2d 189, 196 (Fla.1993) ("The *1255 Legislature has the final word in declarations of public policy ..."); Collier v. Brooks,
632 So.2d 149, 157 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (it is the proper function of the Legislature not the district court of appeal, to announce public policy change). The legislature, by enacting section
731.106(2), determined the public policy on the issue before this court, contrary to Appellant's position. Lastly, Appellant's argument that section
731.106(2) conflicts with, and is subordinate to, section
732.301, is also without merit. Because section
731.106(2) specifically addresses when Florida law should be applied to dispose of the assets of nondomiciliary testators, it controls over the general statute relating to the rights of a pretermitted spouse of a Florida domiciliary, as well as supercedes common law and public policy considerations....
...In summary, the decedent, a Colorado domiciliary, did not provide in his will that Florida law should be applied to distribute his Florida property. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied Appellant's petition for an allocation of her share of the decedent's property under section
732.301, because section
731.106(2) dictates that Colorado law applies....
CopyPublished | District Court of Appeal of Florida | 1992 Fla. App. LEXIS 4243
...it occurred. See Suarnaba, 85 Phil, at 503. All these facts were indicia, under Philippine law, that a legal marriage had occurred. The trial court’s failure to list decedent’s mother in addition to appellee as a beneficiary was, however, error. Section 731.106(2), Florida Statutes (1991) states in part: The court may, and in the case of a decedent who was at the time of his death a resident of a foreign country the court shall, direct the personal representative appointed in this state to m...
