IN RE PALMER'S ESTATE
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 Supreme Court of Florida affirmed a lower court's decision to revoke the probate of a will. The court found that the executor, who was also the chief beneficiary and occupied a confidential relationship with the testatrix, failed to overcome the presumption of undue influence.
No, the lower courts did not err. The circumstances surrounding the will's execution created a presumption of undue influence, and the executor failed to provide sufficient evidence to overcome this presumption.
“that, under such circumstances, there was a presumption of undue influence on the part of appellant, and therefore that the burden was upon appellant, as the proponent of the will, to produce evidence "which at least balances that of the contestant, to show that the will was executed freely and without his influence;" and that the appellant had failed to carry this burden.”
This quote explains the lower court's finding regarding the presumption of undue influence and the burden placed on 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 intelligenceThe appellant, the chief beneficiary and executor of the testatrix's will, filed it for probate. A petition to revoke probate was filed, alleging lack…
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 Presumption Of Undue Influence cases and more on FLexlaw
ROBERTS, Justice.
Stella Anne Palmer, a widow, died on March 30, 1949, and her will was filed for probate on April 11, 1949, by Fred Hope, Sr., the appellant, who was the chief beneficiary under the will and was named as executor thereof.
The will was admitted to probate and letters testamentary issued to the appellant by the County Judge.
Shortly thereafter, on April 16, a petition for the revocation of the probate of the will was filed by a brother of the testatrix, alleging that testatrix lacked sufficient mental capacity to execute a will, which petition was subsequently amended to allege, additionally, that the appellant, while occupying a confidential relationship with testatrix, had exercised undue influence over the testatrix, and that the execution of the will was the result of such undue influence.
After hearing the voluminous testimony adduced by the parties, the County Judge entered an order revoking the probate and decreeing the will to be void and of no effect.
This order was affirmed by the Circuit Judge upon appeal, and we now *733 review the order of the Circuit Judge affirming the Order of Revocation entered by the County Judge.
In his order, the County Judge made, in substance, the following findings of fact and law: that the mental condition of the testatrix had been impaired due to the excessive use of alcohol; that the appellant occupied a confidential relationship with the testatrix; that he actively participated in the drafting and execution of the will, was the chief beneficiary thereunder, and kept it exclusively in his possession until after the death of the testatrix; that, under such circumstances, there was a presumption of undue influence on the part of appellant, and therefore that the burden was upon appellant, as the proponent of the will, to produce evidence "which at least balances that of the contestant, to show that the will was executed freely and without his influence;" and that the appellant had failed to carry this burden.
There was ample evidence to sustain the foregoing findings of fact; and, except in those jurisdictions which hold that undue influence is never presumed, the combination of such facts and circumstances would be universally held to give rise to a presumption that undue influence was exerted on the testatrix.
See Redfearn on Wills and Administrations of Estates in Florida, Section 52, pp. 64 and 65; 57 Am.Jur., pp. 279 et seq.; 68 C.J., pp. 758 et seq.; and see also the annotation in 154 A.L.R. at page 583.
It then became the burden of appellant to prove the absence of undue influence on his part.
Wartmann v. Burleson, 139 Fla. 458, 190 So. 789; Watts v. Newport, 149 Fla. 181, 6 So. 2d 829; In re Peters' Estate, 155 Fla. 453, 20 So. 2d 487, 490.
From our examination of the record, we are unable to say that there was error in holding that the appellant failed to sustain this burden.
Accordingly, the order appealed from should be and it is hereby Affirmed.
ADAMS, C.J., and TERRELL and THOMAS, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (14 total)
-
In re Est. of Coketine Bray Carpenter v. Carpenter, 253 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1971)…ubstantial beneficiary under a will occupies a confidential relationship with the testator and is active in procuring the contested will, the presumption of undue influence arises. Zinnser v. Gregory, 77 So. 2d 611 (Fla.1955); In Re Palmer’s Estate, 48 So. 2d 732 (Fla.1950); In Re Knight’s Estate, 108 So. 2d 629 (Fla.App. 1st, 1959); In Re Estate of MacPhee, supra; In Re Estate of Reid, supra; and In Re Starr’s Estate, 125 Fla. 536, 170 So. 620 (1935). The District Court appears to have entertained some dou…1 / 2
-
Cornwell v. Sullivan, 63 So. 2d 906 (Fla. 1953)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of In re Palmer’s Estate, Fla., 48 So. 2d 732, and Watts v. Newport, 149 Fla. 181, 6 So. 2d 829. ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, HOB-SON and DREW, JJ., concur.…
-
Hattie S. Zinnser v. Gregory, 77 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1955)…which he is made a substantial beneficiary, a presumption of fact will arise that the will is the result of undue influence and the burden will be upon the beneficiary to show that such influence was not exercised. See: In re Palmer’s Estate, Fla., 48 So. 2d 732, and the authorities therein cited, especially the discussion in Redfearn on Wills and Administration of Estates in Florida (2d Ed.), Section 52. B. A. Gregory as the personal attorney for Emmitte H. Carter stood in a fiduciary relationship when he…
Previewing 3 of 14 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re the Est. of Blanche N. Peters v. Fla. Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville, 155 Fla. 453 (Fla. 1945)
- Watts v. Newport, 149 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1941)
- In re Palmer's Estate, 48 So.2d 732 (Fla. 1950)
- Wartmann v. Elta Burleson and Wilton E. Johnson, 139 Fla. 458 (Fla. 1939)