Summary
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed orders denying a petition to revoke probate of a will and trust and rejecting an undue influence claim. The court emphasized that appellants must present the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s findings and held that competent substantial evidence supported the trial court’s conclusions regarding testamentary capacity, execution, and lack of active procurement.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred in denying the petition to revoke probate of the will and trust based on alleged undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity.
- Whether the appellants presented the evidence on appeal in the light most favorable to sustaining the trial court's findings.
- Whether the trial court committed reversible error in its evidentiary treatment of the psychiatric expert testimony and other evidence.
Holdings
- An appellant must provide a statement of facts and interpret the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the fact finder's conclusions.
- The trial court committed no reversible error in denying the petition to revoke probate of the will and trust.
Key quotations
“Where there is competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s conclusions we must affirm.” (slip op. at 2)
Factual background
The appellants challenged the probate of Mrs. Hall's will and trust, asserting undue influence and questioning her testamentary capacity. The trial court found the appellants not credible, relied on testimony from persons present at execution and expert testimony based on medical records and a video of the signing, and found that the documents were properly executed, requested by the decedent, and not actively procured by the appellee. The court also found that the appellee was not a substantial beneficiary under the trust.
Procedural history
The probate court conducted a two-week trial concerning an undue-influence claim and a petition to revoke probate of a will and trust. After considering witness and expert testimony, medical records, and a video of the decedent executing the will, the trial court denied the petition and later denied rehearing. The appellants appealed, and the Third District affirmed.