DONA LIECHTY, APPELLANT,
v.
BEVERLY ANN HALL, ETC., 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.
Appellant sought to revoke probate and reopen an estate based on allegations that the admitted will was a forgery. The court held that fraud, including forgery of a will, can justify reopening an estate even after discharge of the personal representative, and remanded for the appellant to file amended petitions with more detailed factual allegations.
An estate may be reopened based on fraud or forgery of a will even after discharge of the personal representative. The petitions should not have been dismissed without leave to amend. The remedy is available for both testate and intestate estates.
[1] Fraud is a recognized justification for reopening an estate, even after the personal representative has been discharged.
[2] A petition alleging a forged will as the basis for reopening an estate should not be dismissed without leave to amend.
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“fraud is recognized as a justification for reopening an estate, even after an order of discharge has been entered”
Establishes the core holding that fraud can overcome the finality of discharge
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDona Liechty filed a 'Verified Petition for Revocation of Probate' and 'Petition for Subsequent Administration' alleging that the will admitted to pro…
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 Petition For Revocation Of Probate cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, Dona Liechty, seeks review of an order dismissing with prejudice her “Verified Petition for Revocation of Probate” and “Petition for Subsequent Administration.” Relief was sought in these filings based on the allegation that the will admitted to probate was a forgery. We agree with appellant that the petitions should not have been dismissed without leave to amend. The relief sought was not absolutely barred by virtue of the discharge of the personal representative because fraud is recognized as a justification for reopening an estate, even after an order of discharge has been entered. See, e.g., Fritsevich v. Estate of Voss, 590 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991); Payette v. Clark, 559 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990); Grimes v. Estate of Stewart, 506 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987); In re Estate of Beeman, 391 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Yellen v. Long, 387 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980), review denied, 392 So. 2d 1381 (Fla.1981), and cert. denied, 454 U.S. 840, 102 S.Ct. 148, 70 L.Ed.2d 122 (1981); Padgett v. Estate of Padgett, 318 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975). This remedy is available in the case of both testate and intestate estates. Grimes, 506 So. 2d 465.
On remand, appellant shall have leave to file amended petitions that more fully plead the facts and circumstances surrounding the fraud or forgery, or its discovery. Allegations of the perpetration of a fraud on the court, such as through a forged will, should be as strong as possible under the circumstances of the given case in order to warrant the commencement of an investigation by the circuit court. Padgett, 318 So. 2d 484.
AFFIRMED in part; REVERSED in part; and REMANDED.
PETERSON, C.J., and GOSHORN and GRIFFIN, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Harris v. Maryland, 454 U.S. 840 (U.S. 1981)
- Davis v. State, 559 So. 2d 630 (Fla. 4th DCA 1990)
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Calero, 391 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)
- In re Est. of George E. Beeman, 391 So. 2d 276 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Hutch Padgett v. In re the Est. of Nan Padgett, 318 So. 2d 484 (Fla. 1st DCA 1975)
- Yellen v. Long, 387 So. 2d 384 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)
- Vida Grimes v. The Est. OF Edith Stewart, 506 So. 2d 465 (Fla. 5th DCA 1987)
- Karlis Guntis Fritsevich v. In re Est. OF Lydia Voss, 590 So. 2d 1057 (Fla. 3d DCA 1991)