JOHN J. BOYLE, APPELLANT,
v.
LOUISE SCHMITT, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ANCILLARY PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF BLANCHE E. BOYLE, DECEASED, AND LOUISE SCHMITT, INDIVIDUALLY, APPELLEES
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.
John J. Boyle appealed the dismissal of his complaint seeking to enforce a contract to make a will against his mother's estate and to set aside an inter vivos transfer to his sister. The Third District Court of Appeal reversed both dismissals, holding that Boyle, as a donee beneficiary of the will contract, could enforce its terms and challenge transfers made with fraudulent intent to defeat his rights.
The court held that: (1) a contract to make a will between the parents was supported by sufficient consideration (mutual promises to leave property to the plaintiff), and the plaintiff, as donee beneficiary, is entitled to enforce its terms; and (2) inter vivos transfers by a party to a will contract may be set aside by the donee beneficiary where the transfer was made with fraudulent intent to defeat the beneficiary's rights.
[1] A contract to make a will is supported by sufficient consideration when it involves mutual promises to leave property to a designated beneficiary.
[2] A donee beneficiary of a contract to make a will is entitled to enforce its terms.
Previewing 2 of 5 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 contract to make a will entered into between the plaintiff's mother and father was supported by sufficient consideration, namely, the mutual promises exchanged therein to leave all their property by will to the plaintiff, and (b) that the plaintiff, as the donee beneficiary of the contract, is entitled to enforce its terms”
Establishes the court's holding on Count I that donee beneficiaries can enforce will contracts based on mutual promises as consideration
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJohn J. Boyle's mother and father entered into a contract to make wills leaving all their property to the plaintiff. The mother subsequently executed …
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 Enforcement Of Contract Terms cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
This is a consolidated appeal by the plaintiff John J. Boyle from final orders which dismiss his two-count complaint (1) to impose a constructive trust against the personal representative of his mother’s estate so as to carry out the terms of a contract to make a will, which terms were allegedly violated when the mother left a will leaving all her property to the plaintiff’s sister, and (2) to set aside an inter vivos transfer by the plaintiff’s mother of one-third of her estate to the plaintiff’s sister. We reverse the dismissal of count I of the complaint upon a holding (a) that the contract to make a will entered into between the plaintiff’s mother and father was supported by sufficient consideration, namely, the mutual promises exchanged therein to leave all their property by will to the plaintiff, and (b) that the plaintiff, as the donee beneficiary of the contract, is entitled to enforce its terms. In re Estate of Rosentein, 326 So. 2d 239, 241 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976); Ugent v. Boehmke, 123 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960).
We also reverse the dismissal of count II of the complaint upon a holding that (a) the inter vivos transfer of property by a party to a contract to make a will may be set aside by the donee beneficiary of the will contract where, as alleged herein, the transfer is made with the fraudulent intent to defeat the donee beneficiary’s rights under the terms of the will contract, Robinson v. Malik, 115 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959); Tontz v. Heath, 20 Ill.2d 286, 170 N.E. 2d 153 (1960); Dubin v. Wise, 41 Ill.App.3d 132, 354 N.E. 2d 403 (App.Ct.1976); Schwartz v. Horn, 31 N.Y.2d 275, 338 N.Y.S.2d 613, 290 N.E. 2d 816 (1972); Dickinson v. Lane, 193 N.Y. 18, 85 N.E. 818, 820 (1908); DiLorenzo v. Ciancio, 49 A.D.2d 756, 373 N.Y.S.2d 167 (App.Div.), appeal denied, 38 N.Y.2d 707, 382 N.Y.S.2d 1026, 345 N.E. 2d 603 (1975); Quinn v. Quinn, 5 S.D. 328, 58 N.W. 808 (1894); In re Estate of Chayka, 47 Wis.2d 102, 176 N.W. 2d 561 (1970); B. Sparks, Contracts to Make Wills 55 (1956); and (b) no determination contrary to the plaintiff’s claim was made by the trial court in a previous order appealed from in related litigation involving the plaintiff’s mother and father. See Boyle v. Schmitt, 552 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989).
The final orders of dismissal are therefore reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Boyle v. Schmitt, 602 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 3d DCA 1992)…. The litigation over the contract to make a will resulted in the following appeals to this court: Schmitt v. Boyle, 591 So. 2d 637 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991) (denial of petition for certiorari seeking review of order denying jury trial); Boyle v. Schmitt, 578 So. 2d 367 (Fla. 3d DCA) (reversal of trial court's orders dismissing two counts of son's complaints), rev. denied, 587 So. 2d 1329 (Fla.1991); Schmitt v. Boyle, 558 So. 2d 1096 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (seeking review of orders granting leave to amend); Schmitt v.…
Authorities Cited
- Ugent v. Boehmke, 123 So. 2d 387 (Fla. 3d DCA 1960)
- Efroim Max Robinson v. Malik, 115 So. 2d 702 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959)
- Boyle v. Schmitt, 552 So. 2d 1158 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989)
- In re Est. of Julius Rosenstein. Morton Allen Smith v. Nelan Sweet for the Estate of Julius Rosenstein, 326 So. 2d 239 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)