Summary
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed the denial of a petition to revoke probate of a will executed after the testatrix had been placed under a court-appointed curator. The court held that the statutory restriction on a ward’s ability to execute instruments did not invalidate the will, and that the evidence supported the finding that the testatrix possessed testamentary capacity when the will was executed.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether substantial competent evidence supported the county judge's finding that the testatrix possessed testamentary capacity when she executed the will.
- Whether Florida Statutes § 747.11 rendered the will void because the testatrix executed it after appointment of a curator and without obtaining leave of court.
Holdings
- The evidence supported the county judge's finding that the testatrix possessed testamentary capacity when she executed the will.
- Section 747.11 does not render a ward's will void merely because the will was executed after appointment of a curator and without leave of court; the statute does not control the testamentary-capacity requirements of Florida Statutes § 731.04.
Key quotations
“The principle of law that testamentary capacity is to be judged solely at the time of the execution of the will is irrefragable and no authority need be cited.” (435)
“The term "sound mind" means the ability of the testator "to mentally understand in a general way the nature and extent of the property to be disposed of, and the testator's relation to those who would naturally claim a substantial benefit from the will, as well as a general understanding of the practical effect of the will as executed."” (435)
“To interpret section 747.11 as appellant suggests would necessarily result in a change of the provisions of section 731.04, since the requirements for an appointment of a curator under section 747.11 are different and one could then have a sound mind and still not be able to make a will.” (437)
“Clearly physical incapacity is not an element of whether one is possessed of a sound mind and consequently, the test for appointment of a curator under section 747.05[1] is not to be regarded as the equivalent of a finding by the court that the person does not possess a sound mind.” (437)
Factual background
Annie B. Davis, approximately eighty years old, was placed under a court-appointed curator because age-related physical or mental defects rendered her unable to manage her property and exposed her to the risk of loss or exploitation. Eleven days after the curatorship decree, she executed a will substantially favoring three children and leaving only one hundred dollars each to the two daughters who had sought the curatorship. Medical testimony and testimony from subscribing witnesses supported the conclusion that she understood the nature and effect of the will, the extent of her property, and the identity of her relatives at the time of execution.
Procedural history
Annie B. Davis was adjudicated a ward of the circuit court and a curator was appointed under Chapter 747 after a finding that, because of age, she was unable to manage her property and financial affairs. After the adjudication, she executed a new will that substantially excluded the two daughters who had initiated the curatorship proceedings. Following Davis's death, the will was admitted to probate, and appellant petitioned for revocation on grounds of testamentary incapacity and lack of authority to execute a will while under curatorship. The county judge denied the petition, and the District Court of Appeal affirmed.