IN RE ESTATE OF INGVAR O. ROBERG, 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.
Maude G. Roberg challenged the admission of a will to ancillary administration in Florida on grounds of fraud, duress, mistake, and undue influence. The court held that will contests must be resolved before admission to ancillary administration, just as they are in original administrations, and reversed the lower court's order.
Yes. Will contests must be resolved before admission of a will to ancillary administration, just as they must be resolved before admission in original administrations, when the contestant has been served with the petition and files a responsive challenge.
[1] A will devising lands in multiple states is construed by the courts of each state as if it were a separate will for the lands located therein.
[2] Admission of a will to probate in one state does not preclude a challenge to its validity for the disposition of real property in another state.
Previewing 2 of 4 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“When a testator executes a will devising lands in two or more states, the courts in each state construe it as to the lafids located therein as if devised by sepa rate wills.”
Establishes that admission of a will in one state does not preclude challenging its validity in another state where the testator owned property
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceIngvar O. Roberg died with a will that devised real property in both New York and Florida. Georgia C. Roberg, the domiciliary personal representative …
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 Ancillary Administration cases and more on FLexlaw
RYDER, Judge.
Maude G. Roberg appeals the admission of the will of Ingvar O. Roberg to ancillary administration in Florida, arguing that she should have been permitted to contest the will before admission. We agree and reverse.
Georgia C. Roberg, domiciliary personal representative for the estate of Ingvar Ro-berg in New York, filed a petition in the lower court for ancillary letters of administration to administer real property located in Florida, and served a copy of the petition on Maude G. Roberg as guardian of Brian Roberg, an incompetent. Maude Roberg answered the petition and opposed probate, alleging that execution of the will and codicil was tainted by fraud, duress, mistake and undue influence, and that she was contesting the will in New York. After the New York court considered and rejected revoking probate, the lower court entered an order denying appellant’s motion to deny admission of the will to probate in Florida.
When a testator executes a will devising lands in two or more states, the courts in each state construe it as to the lafids located therein as if devised by sepa rate wills. Trotter v. Van Pelt, 144 Fla. 517, 198 So. 215 (1940); 80 Am.Jur.2d Wills § 1062 (1975). Thus, the admission of the instant will to probate in New York does not preclude challenge to validity of the will for purposes of disposition of Florida real property.
There is no provision in the ancillary administration statute which specifically indicates the procedure for such a contest. Section 734.102(4) provides “all proceedings for appointment and administration of the estate shall be as similar to those in original administrations as possible.” In an original administration, a will contest must be resolved prior to admission of the will to probate if the personal representative petitioner has served the interested person with a copy of the petition. Section 733.2123, Florida Statutes (1979). Since appellant was served such a copy, and filed a responsive challenge, we hold that the issue below must likewise be decided before admission of the will to ancillary administration.
We REVERSE the order admitting the will for ancillary administration and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
GRIMES, Acting C. J., and OTT, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re The Est. of Helena Hatcher v. Dodd, 439 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983)…l court had jurisdiction to rule on the validity of the West Virginia will because all of the decedent’s property remained located in Dade County, Florida. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228,2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958); In Re Estate of Roberg, 396 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981); Biederman v. Cheatham, 161 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964). Additionally, in In Re Estate of Swanson, 397 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), the court there discussed whether a Florida court had jurisdiction to [*980] rule on the subst…
-
Rocca v. Boyansky, 80 So. 3d 377 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)…the will to probate.”); Grooms v. Royce, 638 So. 2d 1019, 1021 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) (“The trial court is required to rule on the challenge to the will before proceeding to probate or naming the personal representative .... ”); In re Estate of Roberg, 396 So. 2d 235, 236 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (“In an original administration, a will contest must be resolved prior to admission of the will to probate if the personal representative petitioner has served the interested person with a copy of the petition.”); see also St…
-
In re Est. OF Azalea Lawson Barteau v. Ramos, 736 So. 2d 57 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999)…the wills, including the petition for ancillary administration of the Mexican Will, be conducted in Mexico. In doing so, the trial judge rejected the applicability of In re Swanson’s Estate, 897 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), In re Roberg’s Estate, 396 So. 2d 235 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), and In re Estate of Hatcher, 439 So. 2d 977 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983), instead, apparently relying upon a theory utilizing forum non conve-niens. This was error. While we have found no cases, and none have been cited to us, applicable t…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Trotter v. Van Pelt, 144 Fla. 517 (Fla. 1940)