ROBERT TITTLE,
v.
MONTGOMERY DAHM,
MILLER, J.
Appellant, Robert Tittle, seeks review of a lower court order denying his petition for the administration of a will, grounded upon a finding of undue influence. We conclude the factors delineated in In re Carpenter’s Estate, 253 So. 2d 697, 702 (Fla. 1971), are not exhaustive, but merely illustrative, designed to “aid trial judges in looking for those warning signals pointing to active procurement of a will by beneficiary.” See Blinn v. Carlman, 159 So. 3d 390, 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); Pate v. Mellen, 275 So. 2d 562, 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). Accordingly, and honoring the “trial court’s superior vantage point in assessing the credibility of witnesses” and resolving factual disputes, we decline to disturb the judicious and measured conclusion rendered below. Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917, 923 (Fla. 2001); see In re Krieger’s Estate, 88 So. 2d 497, 498 (Fla. 1956); Coppock v. Carlson, 547 So. 2d 946, 946-47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); In re Lamberson’s Estate, 407 So. 2d 358, 362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); see also Peacock v. Du Bois, 90 Fla. 162, 166, 105 So. 321, 322 (Fla. 1925).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Gardiner v. Goertner, 110 Fla. 377 (Fla. 1932)…the transaction, the mental condition of the person whose act is in question, and the relationship of the parties concerned to each other, are all elements that may be taken into consideration in applying the .rule.” Peacock v. DuBois, 90 Fla. 162, 105 So. 321. While it follpws from this doctrine (and it has been so held), that “an attack on a will on the ground of undue influence concedes the existence of testamentary capacity,” (Hamilton v. Morgan, supra; 28 R. C. L. 139; 1 Woerner, Am. Law of Admin. 3r…1 / 2
-
Neva Hamilton v. A. J. Morgan Under the Instrument Offered for Probate as the Last Will and Testament of Bartlett Hamilton, 93 Fla. 311 (Fla. 1927)…red by undue influence. It has been held that an attack on a will on the gx'ound of undue ixxflueixce concedes the existence of testamentary capacity. Kennedy v. Dickey, 100 Md. 152, 59 Atl. Rep. 661, 68 L. R. A. 317. In Peacock V. DuBois, — Fla. —, 105 South. Rep. 321, this Court in the following language defined the elemexxts constituting undue influence in a case of this kind:- “The rule seems to be well settled that uxidue influence, justifying the setting aside of will, deed, or other contract must be such a…
-
In re the Est. of Clara R. Starr v. Wilson, 125 Fla. 536 (Fla. 1935)…l power of the testator. Mere affection or attachment, or a desire to gratify the wishes of one beloved, respected, and trusted, may not, of itself, amount to undue influence affecting the testamentary capacity of a testator.” In Peacock v. DuBois, 105 So. 321, 90 Fla. 162: “To constitute undue influence the mind must be so controlled or affected by persuasion or pressure, artful or fraudulent contrivances, or by the insidious influences of persons in close confidential relations with him, that he is not…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Est. of Coketine Bray Carpenter v. Carpenter, 253 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1971)
- Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917 (Fla. 2001)
- Peacock v. DuBois, 90 Fla. 162 (Fla. 1925)
- Lennie Elizabeth Pate v. Mellen, 275 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- In re Est. of Frances Krieger, 88 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1956)
- In re Est. OF William Richard Lamberson v. Lamberson, 407 So. 2d 358 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981)
- Demetra F. Blinn v. Carlman, 159 So. 3d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)