Summary
The Florida Third District Court of Appeal affirmed a judgment invalidating William D. Hadash's 2013 will on the ground that it was procured through undue influence by Diane Swiss. The court applied the Carpenter framework, concluding that Swiss's confidential relationship, status as a substantial beneficiary, active involvement in procuring the will, and the suspicious circumstances supported a rebuttable presumption of undue influence. The court declined to reweigh credibility findings supported by competent substantial evidence.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court properly found that the 2013 will was procured by undue influence.
- Whether the trial court's factual findings supporting undue influence were supported by competent substantial evidence.
Holdings
- A rebuttable presumption of undue influence arises when a substantial beneficiary occupying a confidential relationship with the testator actively procures the will. The Carpenter active-procurement criteria are nonexclusive and may be supplemented by other relevant circumstances.
- The presumption was not rebutted, and the trial court's finding that the 2013 will was procured by undue influence was supported by competent substantial evidence.
Key quotations
“[T]o constitute undue influence, 'the influence must amount to over persuasion, duress, force, coercion, or artful or fraudulent contrivances to such an extent that there is a destruction of free agency and willpower of the testator.'” (202)
“[T]he Florida Supreme Court determined that a rebuttable presumption of undue influence can arise where a substantial beneficiary, occupying a confidential relationship with the testator, is shown to have actively procured the will.” (202-203)
“These criteria include: (a) whether the beneficiary was present at the execution of the will; (b) whether the beneficiary was present when the testator expressed a desire to make a will; (c) whether the beneficiary recommended an attorney to draft the will; (d) whether the beneficiary knew of the contents of the will prior to execution; (e) whether the beneficiary gave instructions on preparation of the will to the attorney; (f) whether the beneficiary secured witnesses to the will; and (g) whether the beneficiary possessed the will subsequent to execution.” (203)
“[t]he circumstances [of the will] are highly suspicious, including the absence of a documented attorney's file for the estate preparation ... the clear involvement of ... Swiss in contacting the lawyer and arranging the meeting, [and] the errors in the will and affidavit.” (204)
Factual background
William D. Hadash, a successful businessman, died at age seventy-seven, leaving three adult children and his long-time companion, Diane Swiss. Earlier estate plans provided for both Swiss and the children, but the 2013 will left nearly the entire estate to Swiss, named her personal representative, and gave only $5,000 to one daughter. Before execution, Hadash had suffered a hip fracture, surgery, rehabilitation, declining physical and cognitive health, and dementia-related diagnoses; Swiss managed his affairs, arranged or facilitated contacts with attorneys, restricted communication with his children, and participated in preparing estate documents. The 2013 will and accompanying affidavit contained significant errors, and the trial court found Swiss's testimony unpersuasive.
Procedural history
After the testator's death, Swiss petitioned for formal administration of the 2013 will. Flanagan filed a caveat alleging undue influence and counter-petitioned to probate the 2001 will. Following a trial, the lower court found the 2013 will was procured by undue influence, admitted the 2001 will to probate, and entered a final judgment. Swiss appealed, and the Third District affirmed.