Williams v. Kane

88 So. 2d 599 (Fla. 1956) · Supreme Court of Florida · March 28, 1956

Summary

The Florida Supreme Court reviewed the refusal to admit Anna M. Scheidler's purported will to probate because she lacked testamentary capacity. The court held that the probate court's findings were supported by adequate evidence and should not be disturbed absent a clear misapprehension of the legal effect of the evidence as a whole. The order affirming the probate court's decision was affirmed.

Court
Supreme Court of Florida
Writing for the Court
Prunty, Associate Justice; Drew, C.J.; Terrell, Justice; Thornal, Justice
Jurisdiction
Florida
Decision date
March 28, 1956
Procedural posture
Appeal from a circuit court order affirming a county judge's order that declared the purported will invalid and refused to admit it to probate for lack of testamentary capacity.
Standard of review
Findings of fact and conclusions of law by the probate court, affirmed by the circuit court, will not be disturbed unless the probate court clearly misapprehended the legal effect of the evidence as a whole; the findings should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous or against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Precedential value
Published Florida Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Joseph E. Williams, Principal legatees under the purported will of Anna M. Scheidler v. Ed Kane, Florida State Elks' Association, Inc.
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

testamentary capacityprobateestate litigationappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

ProbateAppellate procedureEvidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the probate court's finding that Anna M. Scheidler lacked testamentary capacity to execute the purported will.
  2. Whether the appellate courts should disturb the probate court's findings and conclusions based on the record.
  3. Whether the probate judge acted improperly by personally interrogating certain witnesses.

Holdings

  1. The record contained adequate evidence to support the probate court's finding that Anna M. Scheidler lacked testamentary capacity to execute the purported will.
  2. Findings of fact and conclusions of law by a probate court, affirmed by the circuit court, will not be disturbed absent a clear misapprehension of the legal effect of the evidence as a whole; the findings must otherwise be clearly erroneous or against the manifest weight of the evidence before reversal is warranted.
  3. The probate judge did not act improperly by personally conducting extended questioning of certain witnesses.

Key quotations

The record clearly demands the application of the now well established doctrine that interference with the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Probate Court will not be indulged in unless it clearly appears that the trial court has misapprehended the legal effect of the evidence as a whole. (602)
the findings of the probate court, affirmed on appeal by the circuit court, should not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous or against the manifest weight of the evidence. (603)

Factual background

Anna M. Scheidler died on November 14, 1952, leaving a purported will dated October 26, 1952. The nominated executor and principal legatees sought probate, while Kane and the Florida State Elks' Association contested the instrument. After testimony from thirty-six witnesses, the county judge found by a preponderance of the competent, credible, relevant, and material evidence that Scheidler lacked testamentary capacity before, during, and after execution of the purported will.

Procedural history

Joseph E. Williams, the nominated executor, petitioned to admit Anna M. Scheidler's purported October 26, 1952, will to probate. Ed Kane and the Florida State Elks' Association contested the will on grounds including lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and improper execution. After an evidentiary hearing, the county judge found that Scheidler lacked testamentary capacity and denied probate; the circuit court affirmed, and the Supreme Court of Florida affirmed the circuit court.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…