Worked through the questions provided by the Florida Bar yesterday and am stuck on this one. Obviously I circled B, but the correct answer is A.
I did not think a premarital agreement could be nullified by a subsequent devise of property. And nothing in the facts mentions homestead.
Just hoping for some help understanding. Thank you.
We are in Dr. Phillips and the thunder for the past hour or two has been crazy. It seems like it's been non-stop, and shaking the house every so often too. Not sure i've ever experienced any storm like this.
I've seen three different definitions of strict scrutiny for both FL and Fed Con Law -
Government has burden to show law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest.
Government has burden to show law is necessary to achieve a compelling state interest.
Government has burden to show law is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest by the least restrictive means necessary.
Which is correct?