Summary
The Florida Supreme Court held that a proponent of a lost will established a prima facie case sufficient to survive a directed verdict by presenting the drafting attorney’s testimony about his custom and practice of retaining copies only for executed wills, a non-conformed carbon copy of the will, and evidence that the original may have been destroyed by water damage or by someone other than the decedent, thereby rebutting the presumption of revocation. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings under Florida’s lost-will statutes, Fla. Stat. §§ 732.24(2) and 732.27(3).
Holdings
- Petitioner established a prima facie case sufficient to withstand a motion for judgment at the close of his case; the evidence, including the attorney's custom and practice, the copy of the will, and circumstances rebutting the presumption of revocation, required respondents to come forward with their evidence.
Questions Presented
- Whether petitioner established a prima facie case for probate of a lost will under Florida Statutes §§ 732.24(2) and 732.27(3).
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (5)
- Stewart v. Johnson, Stewart v. Johnson, 194 So. 869 (Fla. 1940)(followed)
- In re Washington's Estate, In Re Washington's Estate, 56 So.2d 545 (Fla. 1952)(followed)
- In Re Manney's Estate, 42 So.2d 535 (Fla. 1949)(followed)
- Tillman v. Baskin, 260 So.2d 509 (Fla. 1972)(cited)
- Carlton's Estate, In re, 258 So.2d 524 (Fla. 4th DCA 1972)(quashed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…