IN RE ESTATE OF ARTHUR H. BOVEE, DECEASED. CINDY TELLIA AND LISA TELLIA, APPELLANTS,
v.
JOSEPH BOVEE, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF ARTHUR H. BOVEE, 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 court held that the residuary clause was ineffectual, not ambiguous, and that the attempted devise lapsed because its conditions were not met.
[1] A will's residuary clause is ineffectual, not ambiguous, when it fails to designate an alternate beneficiary upon the occurrence of a condition precedent to a named benef…
[2] A conditional devise in a will lapses when the condition precedent is not met and no alternate beneficiary is designated.
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 intelligenceAppellants appealed an order construing the residuary clause of a will. The clause provided for distribution to Jill Bovee, Joseph Bovee, and Lisa Tel…
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 Construction Of Wills cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Cindy and Lisa Tellia appeal an order construing the residuary clause in the will of decedent Arthur H. Bovee. The residuary clause provides:
6. RESIDUARY ESTATE: I give, devise, and bequeath the rest, residue and remainder of my estate, wherever located to the said Jill Bovee, the said Joseph Bovee, and the said Lisa Tellia, in equal shares, should said Cindy Tellia, predecease me or she and I die in circumstances where there is no clear evidence we died other than simultaneously.
Joseph and Jill Bovee are decedent’s children. Cindy Tellia, a former friend of decedent, is a beneficiary under Paragraph 5 of the will. Lisa Tellia is the daughter of Cindy Tellia. Stacy Bovee, the testator’s daughter from a prior marriage, is the beneficiary of a specific bequest in Paragraph 5.
Joseph Bovee, the personal representative, called on the trial court to interpret the residuary clause of the will. Neither Joseph Bovee nor the Tellias presented any evidence as to the testator’s intent. The trial court without explanation determined that Joseph and Jill Bovee would equally share the entire residuary estate. In so doing, the trial court determined that Paragraph 6 is ambiguous. Paragraph 6 is not ambiguous but merely ineffectual.
The devise to Joseph, Jill, and Lisa was conditioned upon Cindy Tellia predeceasing the testator or dying simultaneously with the testator. Since Cindy Tellia survived the testator and no alternate beneficiary was designated, the attempted devise and bequest lapsed. Section 732.603, Florida Statutes, the anti-lapse statute, does not save the gift because its requirements are not met by the facts of this case. Since the will does npt otherwise provide for disposition of the residuary estate, it must descend by the law of intestate succession. See In re Estate of Lubbe, 142 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962), overruled on other grounds, In re Estate of Johnson, 359 So. 2d 425 (Fla.1978); 96 C.J.S. Wills § 1226 (1957).
REVERSED and REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SMITH, KAHN and LAWRENCE, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. of Helen D. Lubbe v. Kamoraski, 142 So. 2d 130 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)
- In re Est. of Ruth L. Johnson v. Morris, 359 So. 2d 425 (Fla. 1978)