IN RE ESTATE OF STANTON GRIFFIS, DECEASED
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Fourth District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's denial of attorney's fees to Elizabeth K. Griffis, a successful will contestant in the Griffis estate litigation. The court held that attorney's fees under Section 733.106(3) of the Florida Statutes are proper when a will contest results in establishing the decedent's true intent and proper distribution of the estate, regardless of whether the contestant personally benefits.
A successful will contestant is entitled to attorney's fees under Section 733.106(3) when the contest establishes the final will of the decedent and results in proper distribution of the estate according to the decedent's intentions, regardless of whether the contestant personally benefits. The trial court's discretion in awarding interest on bequests was properly exercised in the absence of a specific statute governing such awards.
[1] A party is entitled to attorney's fees when their litigation establishes the decedent's final will and allows for the distribution of the estate, even if the party was an…
[2] The award of interest on bequests is within the sound discretion of the court.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“It is not the fact that the beneficiary who contested the probate was successful but that by that contest the final will of the decedent was established and his estate property divided and distributed.”
Establishes the controlling legal principle that attorney's fees in will contests are based on establishing the decedent's intent, not on personal success of the contestant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceStanton Griffis died and his will was contested by Elizabeth K. Griffis. The dispute had previously been litigated in In re Estate of Griffis, 330 So.…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Will Contest cases and more on FLexlaw
[*81] DAUKSCH, Judge.
This is an appeal from an order denying attorney’s fees to successful contestant in a will case.
The case of In re Estate of Griffis, 330 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976) established the manner in which the various beneficiaries were to be treated by the will of the late Stanton Griffis. In order for the last will of Mr. Griffis to be finally decided it was necessary for appellant, Elizabeth K. Grif-fis, to file suit and undergo protracted trial and appellate litigation. As it turned out, Elizabeth was able to obtain a benefit to herself.
More importantly, though, the ultimate will of Stanton Griffis was determined and the estate was benefitted. The benefit is that the beneficiaries whom Stanton Griffis intended are the ones who receive their legacies and bequests. For this the appellant is entitled to an attorney’s fee. Section 733.106(3), Florida Statutes, (1975); In re Estate of McCune, 223 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969). It is not the fact that the beneficiary who contested the probate was successful but that by that contest the final will of the decedent was established and his estate property divided and distributed. In re Estate of Whitehead, 287 So. 2d 9 (Fla.1973); In re Wilmott’s Estate, 66 So. 2d 465 (Fla.1953); Johnson v. Burleson, 61 So. 2d 170 (Fla.1952). It should be noted in the Whitehead, supra, ease the unsuccessful contestant was properly awarded an attorney’s fee. See also In re Estate of Jones, 352 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); In re Estate of Weinstein, 339 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); In re Estate of Barret, 137 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962); In re Estate of Farris, 113 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959).
Appellant also complains about the award of interest on her bequest. She says it should have been given to her from the date it became payable to her which under the common law was one year after the death of the testator. While we have no current statute regarding the payment of this type of interest we did have Section 731.22, Florida Statutes (1973), repealed by Ch. 74 — 106 & Ch. 75-220, Laws of Florida. It would be helpful if the legislature would establish some guidelines for persons concerned to follow. Here the trial judge awarded interest only from the date of the issuance of the mandate in In re Estate of Griffis, supra. For this, we cannot find an abuse of discretion and hold that the award of interest on bequests is within the sound discretion of the court.
The order disallowing attorney’s fees is reversed and this cause remanded for the award of attorney’s fees in an amount to be set by the trial judge. The order awarding interest is affirmed.
REVERSED in part, AFFIRMED in part and REMANDED.
CROSS, J., and LEFFLER, KENNETH M., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (11 total)
-
Samuels v. Est. OF Lucia S. Ahern, 436 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…ho has rendered services to an estate may apply for an award of attorney’s fees. This provision has been interpreted as requiring that the services benefit the estate. In re Gleasons Estate, 74 So. 2d 360 (Fla.1954); In Re Estate of Stanton Griffis, 366 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); In re Farris’ Estate, 113 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1959), cert. den. 116 So. 2d 775 (1959). The authorities are clear that the term, “benefit” as used in this context is not restricted to services that bring about an enhancement…
-
In re Est. OF Stanton Griffis, 399 So. 2d 1048 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)…me attorneys representing the widow here represented her in the two previous appeals. See In re Estate of Griffis, 330 So. 2d 797 (Fla.4th DCA 1976), cert. denied sub nom. Griffis v. Griffis, 342 So. 2d 1101 (Fla.1977);1 and In re Estate of Griffis, 366 So. 2d 80 (Fla.4th DCA 1978).2 These attorneys achieved for her by our 1976 decision the bequest from the decedent in his first codicil of $500,000. In doing so the attorneys effected a reversal of the trial court which had held the widow was entitled to noth…
-
In re Est. OF S. Cyrus Lewis, 442 So. 2d 290 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)…torney who has rendered services to an estate may apply for the award of his fees. The statute has been interpreted as requiring that the services benefit the estate. In Re Gleason’s Estate, 74 So. 2d 360 (Fla.1954); In Re Estate of Stanton Griffis, 366 So. 2d 80 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978); In Re Farris’ Estate, 113 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1959), cert. den., 116 So. 2d 775 (Fla.1959). “Benefit” as used in this context is not restricted to services that bring about an enhancement in value or an increase in the asse…
Previewing 3 of 11 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Wilmott's Estate, 66 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 1953)
- In re Est. of Adele Hart Barret, 137 So. 2d 587 (Fla. 1st DCA 1962)
- Johnson v. Burleson, 61 So. 2d 170 (Fla. 1952)
- In re Est. of William L. Farris v. Bond, 113 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- In re Est. of Charles N. McCUNE, 223 So. 2d 787 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)
- In re Est. of Lillian B. Whitehead, 287 So. 2d 9 (Fla. 1973)
- In re Est. of Emma Jones v. Jones, 352 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977)
- In re Est. of Mayer Weinstein v. Nash, 339 So. 2d 700 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)
- In re Est. of Stanton Griffis, 330 So. 2d 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976)