DEBORAH DAY CATES, APPELLANT,
v.
JOHN R. FRICKER, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a summary judgment denying a petition to revoke probate of a will. The court found the petitioner, who was excluded as a beneficiary, lacked standing because she was not an heir at law and failed to prove prior wills excluding her were invalid.
No, such a party does not have standing. The court held that the appellant, not being an heir at law and failing to meet her burden to show prior wills were invalid, was not an "interested person" with standing to contest the current will.
[1] An interested person, including an heir at law, may bring an action for revocation of probate of a will.
[2] A party seeking to contest a will must demonstrate they are an "interested person" with standing.
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“was specifically excluded as a beneficiary in two (2) previous Wills, the validity of which have not been questioned....”
The basis for the lower court's summary judgment against the appellant.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAppellant sought to revoke probate of her father's will, which excluded her as a beneficiary. The lower court granted summary judgment against her, no…
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 Dependent Relative Revocation cases and more on FLexlaw
LEHAN, Judge.
We affirm the summary judgment which denied appellant’s petition for revocation of probate of her father’s will which excluded appellant as a beneficiary. The basis for the summary judgment was that appellant “was specifically excluded as a beneficiary in two (2) previous Wills, the validity of which have not been questioned....”
Section 733.109(1), Florida Statutes (1987), provides that any “interested person” may bring an action for revocation of probate. An “interested person” may be an heir at law. In re Estate of Ballett, 426 So. 2d 1196, 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). However, it was properly determined in this case that appellant is not an heir at law and thus is not such an “interested person.”
That there had been previous wills of the decedent which also excluded appellant was not by itself necessarily determinative of her lack of standing as an heir at law to contest the will. See Kelley, “Probate Litigation,” Basic Practice Under the Florida Probate Code § 20.24 (1987) (“While it is normally considered that the doctrine of dependent relative revocation will reinstate the next prior will if the present will is determined to be invalid, contrary to popular belief, this is not an imperative.”). See also Stewart v. Johnson, 142 Fla. 425, 194 So. 869 (1940); Denson v. Fayson, 525 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); In re Lubbe’s Estate, 142 So. 2d 130, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). But when an at least facially valid previous will is before the court, the burden is on the potential heir at law who wishes to contest a will to show that the previous will which excluded the contestant was invalid or that the doctrine of dependent relative revocation did not apply. Such facial validity may be shown, as it was here, through copies of previous wills which include copies of the signatures of the testator and witnesses and of the notary certificate. Appellant did not carry her above described burden. See In re Estate of Pfeiffer, 34 Fla.Supp. 132 (Dade Cty. Ct.), aff'd, 240 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Benj. F. Stewart v. Johnson, 142 Fla. 425 (Fla. 1940)
- In re Est. of Helen D. Lubbe v. Kamoraski, 142 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- In re Est. OF Anna H. Ballett, 426 So. 2d 1196 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983)
- Denson v. Fredward Fayson, 525 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Dep't of Health & Rehabilitative Servs. v. Eldora Boyd, 525 So. 2d 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Wallace v. Bonded Rental Agency, 240 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)
- Jerrold A. Bross v. Underdown, 240 So. 2d 211 (Fla. 4th DCA 1970)
- In re Pfeiffer's Will, 34 Fla. Supp. 132 (Dade Cty. J. Ct. 1970)