EVA M. DESHAMBO, APPELLANT,
v.
JEANETTE BARATZ, APPELLEE
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.
Trial court erred in failing to apply the presumption of undue influence that arose from evidence of a confidential relationship and active procurement resulting in financial gain to the transferee; judgment reversed and remanded.
A presumption of undue influence arises when evidence establishes a confidential relationship and active procurement resulting in financial gain, and the burden shifts to the transferee to provide reasonable explanation for the transfer.
[1] A presumption of undue influence arises when evidence establishes both a confidential relationship between donor and transferee and active procurement of the transfer res…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe estate of a deceased donor brought suit to set aside inter vivos transfers of assets to the appellee, who had a confidential relationship with the…
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 Active Procurement cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from a final judgment on the issue of undue influence in a suit to set aside certain inter vivos transfers of assets. The action was brought on behalf of the estate of the deceased donor. We are considerably hampered in our efforts by the absence of a brief from appellee. We have reviewed appellant’s brief and the record on appeal and conclude that the trial court erred. The evidence showed the existence of a confidential relationship and active procurement resulting in financial gain on the part of appellee. The appellee offered no reasonable explanation for her conduct before the trial court and was further unable to explain how the assets transferred to her had been dissipated. Under the circumstances of this case we conclude that a presumption of undue influence arose in accordance with the principles enunciated initially in the case of In re Estate of Carpenter, 253 So. 2d 697 (Fla.1971), as extended by the rationale of Majorana v. Constantine, 318 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975) and Pate v. Mellen, 275 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). We conclude that the trial court did not properly apply this presumption and therefore vacate the final judgment and remand for further proceedings which may, in the discretion of the trial court, include the taking of further evidence.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
ANSTEAD, BERANEK and HURLEY, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. of Coketine Bray Carpenter v. Carpenter, 253 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1971)
- Hattie Majorana v. Constantine, 318 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975)
- Lennie Elizabeth Pate v. Mellen, 275 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)