MARY JO OWENS AND MONICA CLEMENT, APPELLANTS,
v.
ESTATE OF RALPH E. DAVIS, BY AND THROUGH ITS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE, KAREN HOLZAUSER AND JONATHAN STIDHAM, AS THE GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR THE MINOR CHILDREN OF THE TESTATOR, 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.
The appellate court affirmed a summary judgment finding that the appellant son was not a beneficiary of his father's will, as the will's language did not include him.
The court held that the appellant son was not a beneficiary under the will because the will's language did not identify or include him as a beneficiary.
The testator executed a will in 1994, mentioning his wife and his daughter Rita, but not his adult son Carlos who lived abroad. After the testator's d…
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 Will Interpretation cases and more on FLexlaw
KELLY, Judge.
In these consolidated appeals, Mary Jo Owens and Monica Clement, the adopted children of Ralph E. Davis, appeal from an order entered on cross-petitions to determine the beneficiaries of their father’s estate. On appeal, they argue that the trial court improperly considered extrinsic evidence in interpreting Mr. Davis’s will. We agree.
A testator’s intent as expressed in his will controls the legal effect of his dispositions. In re Estate of Budny, 815 So. 2d 781, 782 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002); see also § 732.6005(1), Fla. Stat. (2003). When a will is clear and unambiguous on its face, extrinsic evidence of the testator’s intent is inadmissible. In re Estate of Benson, 548 So. 2d 775, 777 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989); Dutcher v. Estate of Dutcher, 437 So. 2d 788, 789 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983). The terms of Mr. Davis’s will are clear and unambiguous; however, the will does not specify how the probate court should distribute Mr. Davis’s residuary estate if his wife claims her elective share. When Mr. Davis’s wife claimed her elective share, rather than let the residuary estate pass according to the law of intestate succession, the probate court considered extrinsic evidence to determine how to distribute those assets. The trial court’s consideration of extrinsic evidence to “rewrite” the will was error:
The court may not alter or reconstruct a will according to its notion of what the testator would or should have done.... It is not the purpose of the court to make a will or to attempt to improve on one that the testator has made. Nor may the court produce a distribution that it may think equal or more equitable.
In re Estate of Barker, 448 So. 2d 28, 31-32 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984) (quoting 18 Fla. Jur.2d Decedent’s Property § 358, at 216). Accordingly, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
VILLANTI and WALLACE, JJ., Concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ebanks v. Ebanks, 198 So. 3d 712 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016)…lution proceedings against his wife, yet he took no steps to alter the title to the Cayman Islands property so as to eliminate the survivorship rights. When a testator’s intent is clear, it will be upheld. Owens v. Estate of Davis ex rel. Holzauser, 930 So. 2d 873, 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006); In re Wood’s Estate, 226 So. 2d 46, 48 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). We reverse the order that granted the Estate’s motion, to enforce the final judgment and the marital settlement agreement against Diana, and we remand with directio…
-
Buford Cody v. Cody, 127 So. 3d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013)…hould have done.... It is not the purpose of the court to make a will or to attempt to improve on one that the testator has made. Nor may the court produce a distribution that it may think equal or more equitable. See also Owens v. Estate of Davis, 930 So. 2d 873, 874 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006). Here, Mr. Martin’s devise to Buford Cody vested Buford’s interest in the real property upon Mr. Martin’s death. § 732.514, Fla. Stat. The will’s lack of restrictions on Buford Cody’s discretion to [*758] share the property…
-
Green v. Green (Fla. 5th DCA 2026)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Dutcher v. The Est. OF Loreta B. Dutcher, 437 So. 2d 788 (Fla. 2d DCA 1983)
- Eurice v. State, 448 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 2d DCA 1984)
- In re Est. OF Evelyn Agnes Barker v. Broughton, 448 So. 2d 28 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984)
- In re Est. OF Margaret H. Benson v. Starnes, 548 So. 2d 775 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)
- In re Est. OF Vincent Joseph Budny v. Mikell, 815 So. 2d 781 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002)