IN RE THE ESTATE OF ROBERT L. REID, DECEASED. DANIEL REID, APPELLANT,
v.
RUBY WHITFIELD AND BERTHA PAUL, APPELLEES
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.
Daniel Reid, sole surviving lineal descendant of Robert L. Reid, appealed a probate court order limiting his inheritance to $20 per month under the testator's will. The court reversed, holding that where a will's primary dispositive provisions fail, the estate must pass entirely by intestate succession to Daniel as the sole surviving lineal descendant, rather than being limited by the testator's intent regarding a secondary bequest.
The remaining estate must pass according to intestate succession law. Once a will is declared invalid as to its primary dispositive provisions, the testator's intent is no longer controlling, and Daniel, as the sole surviving lineal descendant, is entitled to the entire intestate estate under Florida Statutes § 732.103.
[1] When a will is declared invalid, the testator's intent is no longer controlling, and the property must pass according to the law of intestate succession.
[2] The lineal descendants of a decedent take the entire intestate estate if there is no surviving spouse.
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“However, once a will is declared invalid, the testator's intent is no longer controlling and the property must pass according to the law of intestate succession.”
Establishes the fundamental principle that when a will fails, intestate succession law governs rather than testator intent
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceRobert L. Reid, a widower, executed a will establishing a trust with income for his daughter Alma (up to $75/month) and excess income to his son Danie…
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 Lineal Descendants cases and more on FLexlaw
WENTWORTH, Judge.
This is an appeal from the order of the probate judge which held that Daniel Reid, the sole surviving lineal descendant of Robert L. Reid was denied a share in the intestate estate of Robert L. Reid because the will provided a specific bequest for him. We reverse.
Robert L. Reid, a widower, died leaving a last will and testament establishing a trust, the net income of which was to be used for the benefit of his daughter Alma up to $75.00 per month, with any excess income to paid to his son Daniel. The will further provided that if Alma predeceased Daniel the trust should terminate and Robert’s other son Reuben should take the balance of the corpus and the income, but should pay Daniel $20.00 per month for the rest of his life. Alma and Reuben both predeceased Robert, leaving Daniel as the sole surviving lineal descendant. When Daniel applied for administration, appellees, nieces of the decedent, filed for construction of the will and designation of beneficiaries. In denying Daniel’s motion to dismiss their petition the trial court properly found that the bequests to Alma, Reuben and Mrs. Reid had failed, and, since no provisions for the remainder were made, the will was ineffective to dispose of the estate except for the bequest to Daniel of $20.00 per month. See In Re Levy’s Estate, 196 So. 2d 225 (Fla.3d DCA 1967).
The trial court, relying on the general maxim that the testator’s intent is the polestar in interpreting a will, then determined that the testator intended that Daniel take only the $20.00 per month for the rest of his life, and the remaining estate should be distributed to the heirs-at-law determinable as of Daniel’s death. In this ruling, the trial court erred. Unquestionably, the intention of the testator is the primary factor in determining the meaning of any will. In Re Estate of Lesher, 365 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979). However, once a will is declared invalid, the testator’s intent is no longer controlling and the property must pass according to the law of intestate succession. In Re Stephan’s Estate, 194 So. 343 (Fla.1940); In Re Lubbe’s Estate, 142 So. 2d 130 (Fla.2d DCA 1962); Section 732.101(1), Florida Statutes (1979). Pursuant to § 732.103, Florida Statutes (1979), the lineal descendants of the decedent take the entire intestate estate if there is no surviving spouse. Daniel as the sole surviving lineal descendant is therefore entitled to the entire estate.
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SHIVERS, J., and WOODIE A. LILES (Ret.), Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. OF Evelyn Agnes Barker v. Broughton, 448 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)…xclude such persons altogether from the benefits of the estate, and where the testator does make some provision for the person in question but specifies that such provision shall be all that such person is to receive. See also In Re Estate of Reid, 399 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). In any event, without the aid of the proffered extrinsic evidence (principally, attorney Arnold’s affidavit) as to what the decedent’s intent was, her will is clear as to its meaning and needs no interpretation in order to be i…
-
Zrillic v. Est. OF Lorraine E. Romans, 535 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988)…ition. Notwithstanding appellant’s limited bequest under the will, she would be entitled to her intestate share upon the avoidance or absence of the residuary clause. See In re Barker’s Estate, 448 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984); In re Reid’s Estate, 399 So. 2d 1032 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981); Ruppert v. Hastings’ Estate, 311 So. 2d 810 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). COBB and COWART, JJ., concur.…
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. of Helen D. Lubbe v. Kamoraski, 142 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- In re Est. of Felix Levy v. Hebrew Tech. Inst., 196 So. 2d 225 (Fla. 3d DCA 1967)
- In re Est. of John Stephan v. Gerhart, 142 Fla. 88 (Fla. 1940)
- Simmons v. The Honorable Joseph M. Crowell, 365 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)
- In re The Est. of Coleman K. Lesher v. Fla. Nat'l Bank of Gainesville, 365 So. 2d 815 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979)