LORRAINE E. ZRILLIC, APPELLANT/CROSS APPELLEE,
v.
ESTATE OF LORRAINE E. ROMANS, DECEASED, APPELLEE/CROSS APPELLANT. AND SHRINERS HOSPITAL FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN, 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.
In this probate appeal, the court reversed the trial court's order striking down Florida's charitable devise statute (section 732.803) as unconstitutional under equal protection principles. The court upheld the statute, which allows surviving spouses or lineal descendants to void charitable bequests made within six months of death, finding it rationally related to its legislative purpose and distinguishable from mortmain statutes struck down elsewhere.
The statute does not violate equal protection guarantees and is constitutionally sound. The statute is rationally related to its legislative purpose of protecting surviving spouses and lineal descendants from improvident charitable bequests made near death. Additionally, Zrillic had standing to file the petition because she would be entitled to her intestate share if the charitable bequest were avoided or absent.
[1] A statute requiring charitable bequests to be made more than six months before a testator's death, or to be included in a prior will or codicil, is rationally related to…
[2] A charitable devise made within six months of a testator's death will be upheld if a similar devise was contained in a preceding will or codicil.
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“The legislature has recognized the difference between a decedent's imminent concern for his or her immortality at the ex pense of those mortals dependent upon the decedent who are left behind and those decedents who have given a lengthier consideration of charity prior to their demise.”
Establishes the rational basis for the statute's differentiation between near-death charitable gifts and those made with longer consideration
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLorraine Zrillic appealed the trial court's denial of her petition to avoid a charitable devise in the estate of Lorraine Romans. The trial court had …
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 Rational Basis Review cases and more on FLexlaw
GLICKSTEIN, H.S., Associate Judge.
Appellant seeks reversal of the trial court’s order denying her petition to avoid a charitable devise. We conclude the trial court erred in holding section 732.803, Florida Statutes (1985) unconstitutional under the federal and state equal protection clauses, reverse the order, and remand.
Although addressing the similar predecessor statute, the supreme court’s holding in Taylor v. Payne, 154 Fla. 359, 17 So. 2d 615 (1944), appeal dismissed, 323 U.S. 666, 65 S.Ct. 49, 89 L.Ed. 541 (1944), rehearing denied, 323 U.S. 813, 65 S.Ct. 113, 89 L.Ed. 647 (1944) is still viable. See also Arthritis Foundation v. Beisse, 456 So. 2d 954 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984), rev. den., 467 So. 2d 999 (Fla.1985). The present statute is rationally related to its purpose. Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259, 99 S.Ct. 518, 58 L.Ed.2d 503 (1978).
The legislature has recognized the difference between a decedent’s imminent concern for his or her immortality at the ex pense of those mortals dependent upon the decedent who are left behind and those decedents who have given a lengthier consideration of charity prior to their demise. While the statute may be broader than the defined purpose of protecting the surviving spouse and lineal descendants from improvident charitable bequests, such restriction of scope is a problem for the legislature to cure. In re Blankenship’s Estate, 122 So. 2d 466 (Fla.1960); In re Pratt’s Estate, 88 So. 2d 499, 501 (Fla.1956).
We find the Florida statute under scrutiny different from those in other states in which the “Mortmain” statutes have been held unconstitutional. Most important is the savings clause in section 732.803(l)(e), which provides that a devise to a charity will stand, notwithstanding that the making of the will was within six months of the testator’s date of death, if a similar devise was contained in a preceding will or codicil. In addition, our statute does not automatically void the charitable bequest, but makes it voidable at the option of the surviving spouse or lineal descendant, and only if avoidance would inure to their benefit.
We find no merit to the cross appeal, which attacks the trial court’s determination that appellant had standing to file the subject petition. 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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Shriners Hosps. FOR Crippled Child. v. Zrillic, 563 So. 2d 64 (Fla. 1990)…BARKETT, Justice. We have consolidated for review two cases that arose out of Zrillic v. Estate of Romans, 535 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988). One presents an issue concerning the district court’s express declaration of validity of section 732.803 of the Florida Statutes (1985), which pertains to charitable devises.1 The other alleges an express and direct conflict wit…1 / 2
-
Fla. Elks Child's. Hosp. v. Stanley, 610 So. 2d 538 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…estate taxes. On October 20, 1988, this court upheld the constitutionality of section 732.803 relying upon Taylor v. Payne, 154 Fla. 359, 17 So. 2d 615, appeal dismissed, 323 U.S. 666, 65 S.Ct. 49, 89 L.Ed. 541 (1944). Zrillic v. Estate of Romans, 535 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 5th DCA 1988).2 The Florida Supreme Court accepted jurisdiction of that case on June 6, 1989. Romans v. Zrillic, 545 So. 2d 869 (Fla.1989). See also, Shriners Hospitals for Crippled Children v. Zrillic, 545 So. 2d 869 (Fla.1989). On May 31, 19…
Authorities Cited (15 total)
- Lalli v. Lalli, 439 U.S. 259 (U.S. 1978)
- Dowling & Camp, Inc. v. Alford, 154 Fla. 359 (Fla. 1944)
- Lumbermen's Mut. Cas. Co. v. Lumber Mut. Cas. Ins. Co. OF NEW York, 154 Fla. 367 (Fla. 1944)
- In re Est. of Charles H. Pratt v. Pratt, 88 So. 2d 499 (Fla. 1956)
- Taylor v. Mary Emma Payne as administratrix de bonis non cum testamento annexo, 154 Fla. 359 (Fla. 1944)
- Sands Bury LEE v. Cochran, 122 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1960)
- In re Est. of Iva Neil Blankenship v. J. L. Reed & SON, 122 So. 2d 466 (Fla. 1960)
- Eurice v. State, 448 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- In re Est. OF Evelyn Agnes Barker v. Broughton, 448 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- Taylor v. Payne, 323 U.S. 666 (U.S. 1944)