BARBARA JOYCE JOHNSON AND WILLIAM M. JOHNSON, JR.,
v.
BLANCHE JOHNSON, LYNWOOD P. JOHNSON AND ANN G. JOHNSON
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 court reversed a lower court's decision in a will contest because the proponents failed to establish the attestation of the will, which is a statutory requirement.
The court held that the proponents' failure to establish attestation of the will requires reversal, even if a prima facie case of execution was made.
The proponents of a purported will failed to introduce any evidence to establish the attestation of the will, despite this being a statutory requireme…
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 Revocation Of Will cases and more on FLexlaw
On December 18, 1944 the will of William M. Johnson was probated and on January 11, 1945, Barbara Joyce Johnson and William M. Johnson, Jr., daughter and son by the deceased’s first marriage, petitioned the court to revoke the probate of the will upon the grounds (1) that at the time of the execution of the will William M. Johnson was not of testamentary capacity and (2) that the execution of the will was the result of undue influence.
Section 732.30, Florida Statutes 1941, F.S.A., prescribes:
“ . . . The petition shall set forth . . . the facts constituting the grounds upon which revocation is demanded.”
For the purposes of the hearing on the motion to revoke upon the grounds stated the execution of the will might properly have been assumed.
At the hearing on the petition for revocation evidence was introduced by the proponents of the will to establish that the signature to the will was that of William M. Johnson and no evidence was introduced by the movants.
The motion to vacate and set aside the probate of the will was denied and upon appeal to the circuit court the county judge was affirmed and movants now have appealed to this court.
Contestants have failed to introduce any evidence to support the grounds stated in their motion and argue that the proof of the execution of the will is insufficient to authorize probate. It is our conclusion that the judgment should be affirmed and it is so ordered.
CHAPMAN, C. J., BROWN and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
*317ON REHEARING GRANTED
Petition for rehearing suggests that we have overlooked Sec. 732.31, Fla. Stat. 1941, F.S.A., which provides that upon proceedings contesting a purported will that the proponents shall have the burden of proof, in the first instance, to establish the formal execution and attestation of the will, whereupon the burden shifts to the contestants to establish their stated grounds for revocation of probate.
Upon further consideration we find we were in error in affirming the appeal in that no evidence of any kind was introduced by the proponents to establish attestation. This is one of the statutory requirements whether the contest is before or after the will has been probated.
A prima facie case of execution was established but not attestation.
For an assignment of error merely to state that the court erred in entering a specified order is customarily treated as sufficient in our practice but it is not conducive to the best results. An assignment of error is in the nature of a declaration or complaint. It should state a case.
An appellate court should be liberal in not exacting too much nicety in the specifications of error assigned and on the contrary the appellants should be generous in designating with a fair degree of certainty the specific grounds for reversal. See 2 Am. Jur., Sec. 694, et seq.
“Questions presented” as argument in the brief must flow from and be raised by the complaint against the lower court and be supported by the record on appeal.
Reversed for further proceedings.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL, and BUFORD, JJ., concur.
BROWN and THOMAS, JJ., dissent.
ADAMS, J., not participating.
[*317] ON REHEARING GRANTED
BARNS, Circuit Judge:
Petition for rehearing suggests that we have overlooked Sec. 732.31, Fla. Stat. 1941, F.S.A., which provides that upon proceedings contesting a purported will that the proponents shall have the burden of proof, in the first instance, to establish the formal execution and attestation of the will, whereupon the burden shifts to the contestants to establish their stated grounds for revocation of probate.
Upon further consideration we find we were in error in affirming the appeal in that no evidence of any kind was introduced by the proponents to establish attestation. This is one of the statutory requirements whether the contest is before or after the will has been probated.
A prima facie case of execution was established but not attestation.
For an assignment of error merely to state that the court erred in entering a specified order is customarily treated as sufficient in our practice but it is not conducive to the best results. An assignment of error is in the nature of a declaration or complaint. It should state a case.
An appellate court should be liberal in not exacting too much nicety in the specifications of error assigned and on the contrary the appellants should be generous in designating with a fair degree of certainty the specific grounds for reversal. See 2 Am. Jur., Sec. 694, et seq.
“Questions presented” as argument in the brief must flow from and be raised by the complaint against the lower court and be supported by the record on appeal.
Reversed for further proceedings.
CHAPMAN, C. J., TERRELL, and BUFORD, JJ., concur. BROWN and THOMAS, JJ., dissent.
ADAMS, J., not participating.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. of John T. Hill, Sr. v. Dolly B. Hill and Sole Legatee, 114 So. 2d 462 (Fla. 2d DCA 1959)…ion of the State of Florida, F.S.A., and Rule 4.4, Florida Appellate Rules, 31 F.S.A. (See Chapman v. Campbell, 114 So. 2d 430, decided by this court on September 16, 1959). An inspection of the record in the case of Johnson [*463] v. Johnson, 1946, 158 Fla. 315, 28 So. 2d 438, relied on by the appellants, divulges that that case was completed, and it was upon that status the probate judge entered an order which was a final order. The instant case is not a concluded one. The appeal in this cause be and the…
-
White v. State, 160 Fla. 965 (Fla. 1948)…BARNS, J.: This is an appeal of a final judgment in prohibition wherein a peremptory writ is issued. The first appearance of the subject matter of this case was in Johnson v. Johnson, 158 Fla. 315, 28 So. 2nd 438. The second appearance was a mandamus proceeding in the circuit court, seeking to have the court direct the manner in which the county judge should proceed, which mandamus was denied by the circuit court and affirmed by this court —…1 / 2
-
Skrobick v. Pioneer Growers Coop., 9 Fla. Supp. 46 (Fla. Industrial Comm'n 1956)…ral definition of the word “concise” the applicant has complied with the statutory provisions and commission rules — notwithstanding the desirability of having grounds stated more specifically. In support of this position we cite Johnson v. Johnson, 28 So. 2d 438, where our Supreme Court said — [*48] “For an assignment of error merely to state that the court erred in entering a specified order is customarily treated as sufficient in our practice, but it is not conducive to the best results. An assignment of…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence