- 7 -
Morgan v. Commissioner, supra at 80; Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111
(1930).
The June Agreement does not explicitly order that payments
terminate upon Mrs. Desauguste’s death, and, thus, the Court
examines Florida law to determine whether the payments would
terminate by operation of Florida law. Hoover v. Commissioner,
supra at 847. When examining a matter of State substantive law,
the Court will look to a State’s highest court to determine the
rights of parties under State law. See Commissioner v. Estate of
Bosch, 387 U.S. 456, 465 (1967).
The Supreme Court of Florida has clearly stated that “By
weight of authority and in this state, alimony * * * terminates
upon the death of either of the parties or upon the remarriage of
the wife.” In re Estate of Freeland, 182 So. 2d 425, 426 (Fla.
1965); see also O’Malley v. Pan Am. Bank, 384 So. 2d 1258 (Fla.
1980); Canakaris v. Canakaris, 382 So .2d 1197 (Fla. 1980). The
Supreme Court of Florida has determined that an exception to this
general rule applies where there is a contract or an agreement
clearly evidencing the intention of the husband to bind his
estate to continue payments in the nature of alimony after his
death. In re Estate of Freeland, supra at 426; see also O’Malley
v. Pan Am. Bank, supra at 1260.
Respondent argues that the provision in the June Agreement
stating that the agreement was binding on the “heirs” of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011