## Facts

- In December 2005, Ron Priever executed a will devising property to his fiancée, Silvia Gordon; if she did not survive him, the will devised the property to her two children.
- Priever and Gordon later married and then divorced in July 2013.
- Priever died in 2015 without a surviving spouse or children.
- Robert Fishman, acting as guardian for Priever’s father, initiated estate administration treating the estate as intestate, alleging Priever had destroyed or revoked the 2005 will after a premarital agreement and the divorce.
- Gordon filed the original 2005 will in the probate proceeding.
- Fishman sought an order determining beneficiaries, arguing that under section 732.507(2), Florida Statutes (2015), the will must be construed as if Gordon had predeceased Priever because they divorced.
- Gordon objected, arguing the statute did not apply because Priever was not married when he executed the will.
- The trial court ruled that section 732.507(2) applied as a matter of law, treated Gordon as predeceased, and determined beneficiaries to be Gordon’s two children and Priever’s father; it denied Gordon’s postorder motions.

## Issues

1. Whether section 732.507(2), Florida Statutes (2015), voids a will provision benefiting a former spouse when the will was executed before the marriage and the parties later married and divorced.
2. Whether a court may extend section 732.507(2) beyond its text based on asserted legislative purpose or analogies to other probate statutes.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the order determining beneficiaries and remanded.
- Section 732.507(2) did not apply because its text limits its operation to a will “executed by a married person,” and Priever was not married when he executed the 2005 will.
- The court rejected arguments to broaden the statute based on policy or legislative-intent claims where the statutory language is unambiguous.
- The court declined to import concepts from the pretermitted-spouse statute into section 732.507(2).
- The court limited its review to the statutory-construction ground relied on by the trial court and did not decide alternative revocation theories not established in the record.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory interpretation of an unambiguous probate statute is reviewed de novo.
- When statutory text is clear, courts must apply its plain meaning and may not rewrite it based on policy concerns or generalized legislative purpose.
- Section 732.507(2), Florida Statutes (2015), applies only to provisions of a will executed by a person who was married at the time of execution; divorce does not trigger the statute for a premarital will benefiting a later spouse.
- Courts should not graft language or concepts from separate probate statutes onto section 732.507(2) absent statutory text supporting that importation.

## Conclusion

The court held that Florida’s divorce-revocation statute did not void a devise to a former spouse where the will was executed before the marriage, reversed the beneficiary determination based on that statute, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the will’s continued effect subject to any properly proven revocation grounds.


Gordon v. Fishman, 253 So. 3d 1218 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2d Dist. 2018)