Summary
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the probate of a will, holding the testator had testamentary capacity under the three-part test requiring a general understanding of his property, his relationships to potential beneficiaries, and the practical effect of the will. The court also held that although a presumption of undue influence arose from the beneficiary’s confidential relationship and active procurement, the proponent met his burden under Florida Statute §733.107 by proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the will was not the product of undue influence.
Holdings
- The testator had testamentary capacity at the time of executing the will, as he understood the nature and extent of his property, his relation to potential beneficiaries, and the practical effect of the will.
- Although a presumption of undue influence arose under In re Estate of Carpenter, the proponent met his burden under §733.107, Florida Statutes, to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the will was not the product of undue influence.
Questions Presented
- Whether the testator had testamentary capacity at the time of executing the will.
- Whether the will was procured by undue influence.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (9)
- Raimi v. Furlong, 702 So.2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1998)(relied upon)
- In re Weihe's Estate, 268 So.2d 446 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)(relied upon)
- In re Dunson's Estate, 141 So.2d 601 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)(relied upon)
- In re Wilmott's Estate, In re Wilmott's Estate, 66 So.2d 465 (Fla. 1953)(relied upon)
- Coppock v. Carlson, 547 So.2d 946 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)(relied upon)
- In re Estate of Carpenter, 253 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1971)(relied upon)
- Hack v. Janes, Hack v. Janes, 878 So.2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004)(relied upon)
- In re Weihe's Estate, 275 So.2d 244 (Fla. 1973)(subsequent history noted)
- Coppock v. Carlson, 558 So.2d 17 (Fla. 1990)(subsequent history noted)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…