Summary
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed whether the petitioner established a prima facie case to probate a lost will using a carbon, nonconformed copy. The court held that evidence concerning the attorney’s customary practices, the copy’s presence in his active files, and circumstances surrounding the original will’s disappearance was sufficient to require the respondents to present their evidence. The court quashed the district court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether petitioner established a prima facie case under Florida's statutes governing proof of wills and probate of lost wills.
- Whether the evidence permitted an inference that the original will had been destroyed without an intent by the decedent to revoke it.
Holdings
- Petitioner established at least a prima facie case under the applicable lost-will and proof-of-wills statutes, sufficient to withstand judgment at the close of his case and require respondents to present their evidence.
- The mere fact that the decedent possessed the will and that it was missing did not require a finding of revocation because the presumption of destruction must be based on an intent to revoke.
Key quotations
“Certainly, by any standards of statutes, case law and rationale, reasonable inferences to be drawn from the evidence, and by logic and reason, a prima facie case was established by petitioner, sufficient to withstand the assault at the close of his case, and to require respondents to come forward with their evidence.” (834)
“However, the presumption of destruction must be based upon the “intent” to revoke.” (834)
Factual background
Petitioner sought to probate a carbon, nonconformed copy of the decedent's alleged will under Florida's lost-will statutes. The decedent's attorney testified that his custom and practice was to place a copy of a will in his active files only if the original had been duly executed and witnessed, and the copy was in his active files. The original was missing, the decedent's safe was found waterlogged after his death, and evidence showed the decedent repeatedly expressed a desire to leave his estate to petitioner and had displayed a purported holographic will doing so.
Procedural history
The trial court entered judgment against petitioner at the close of petitioner's case. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed that judgment. The Supreme Court of Florida accepted certiorari jurisdiction because the district court's decision conflicted with prior decisions of the Supreme Court of Florida, quashed the district court's decision, and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal was quashed, and the cause was reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. On remand, the trial judge was to permit respondents to present their evidence and then weigh and evaluate the evidence in accordance with law, reason, and logic.