Kluger Kaplan attorneys Bruce Katzen and Daniel Herrera secured summary judgment on behalf of Francisco Maximiliano Martinez Miyashiki, the personal representative of a roughly $100 million estate, defeating a surviving spouse’s claim for an additional $30 million elective share. The Miami-Dade court ruled that the widow failed to meet Florida’s statutory deadline to make the election, barring the claim from proceeding. 

The dispute involved the estate of a wealthy real estate investor and former European film star and the widow’s effort to claim a statutory share of his estate beyond the approximately $20 million in assets provided for under the couple’s prenuptial and postnuptial agreements. The estate included valuable South Florida real estate holdings. 

Under Florida law, an eligible surviving spouse may generally elect to receive 30% of the elective estate, subject to applicable statutory provisions and exceptions. In this case, the claim could have been worth approximately $30 million. 

A Dispositive Filing Deadline 

The couple’s prenuptial agreement initially provided the widow with approximately $5 million. After about a year of marriage, she negotiated an additional $15 million through a subsequent marital agreement, bringing the total to approximately $20 million in assets. She later pursued an elective share that could have substantially increased her recovery. 

Katzen said the estate’s legal strategy focused on a critical procedural issue: the deadline to file the claim. 

Florida law generally requires an elective-share election by the earlier of six months after service of the notice of administration or two years after the decedent’s death, subject to applicable exceptions and extensions. In this case, after waiving formal service, the widow’s deadline expired in April 2022. She did not file her election until August 2023, more than 500 days after the deadline. 

“We felt that we could end the case on the timing alone and the court agreed,” Katzen said. 

The court granted summary judgment and dismissed the elective-share claim with prejudice based on the missed deadline. The ruling resolved the claim without requiring the court to determine the validity of the parties’ disputed marital agreements. 

“This case demonstrates the importance of carefully analyzing the procedural requirements that govern estate litigation from the outset,” Herrera said. “By identifying the missed deadline, we were able to resolve a significant claim efficiently without requiring the court to reach the more complex disputes surrounding the marital agreements.” 

The Importance of Procedural Strategy 

The ruling underscores the importance of identifying dispositive procedural issues in complex estate litigation, particularly when competing claims involve substantial assets and disputed marital agreements. By focusing on the statutory filing deadline, Kluger Kaplan secured summary judgment on the elective-share claim without requiring the court to reach the underlying contractual disputes.