IN RE UNDERHILL'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.
In a petition to revoke probate of a will, the court upheld the validity of a will executed in 1972 where the drafter attorney received the entire estate as beneficiary. The court found no undue influence despite the presumption that arises when an attorney benefits substantially from a will he drafts, based on exceptional circumstances and evidence of the testatrix's testamentary capacity and independent decision-making.
The court held that the will should not be revoked. The testatrix possessed testamentary capacity and was not a victim of undue influence on the date of execution. The exceptional circumstances of the case—including the testatrix's knowledge of the gift, her independent travel to the office, her stated desire to benefit the attorney, her opportunity to modify the will afterward, her maintained financial independence, and her substantial personal relationship with the attorney—overcome the presumption of undue influence.
[1] A presumption of undue influence may arise when an attorney participates in the making of a will in which the attorney receives a substantial gift.
[2] The presumption of undue influence arising from an attorney's participation in a will where the attorney is a beneficiary shifts the burden of proof to the proponent of t…
Previewing 2 of 6 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“where an attorney participated in the making of a will whereby he received a substantial gift as a devisee or legatee there is a presumption that the gift was obtained through undue influence but this case was overruled by the Florida case reported at 253 So.2d 697 as to shifting of burden of proof to proponent when presumption of undue influence arises.”
Establishes the legal framework for analyzing undue influence claims involving beneficiary attorneys and the evolution of Florida law on burden-shifting.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAttorney Joe T. Martin drafted a will dated December 15, 1972, for the testatrix and mailed it to her days before execution, suggesting she execute it…
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
This cause came on for trial upon petition for revocation of probate of will.
The court finds the will dated December 15th, 1972 was admitted to probate May 21st, 1973 . and its probate should not be revoked.
*198The Florida case reported at 138 So.2d 342 was cited as holding that where an attorney participated in the making of a will whereby he received a substantial gift as a devisee or legatee there is a presumption that the gift was obtained through undue influence but this case was overruled by the Florida case reported at 253 So.2d 697 as to shifting of burden of proof to proponent when presumption of undue influence arises. (See 19 A.L.R. 3d 575-634, §4(c) and §5(a) and 1973 Supplement thereto.)
Here attorney Joe T. Martin prepared the will and mailed it some days ahead of December 15th, 1972 to the testatrix suggesting that she execute it before some one other than himself, but she came to his office on December 15th stating that she wished to execute the will — whereupon Mr. Martin went out the back door of his office, and the will was thereafter executed before and witnessed by his wife, Betty J. Martin, and one Joyce K. McCollum. The court finds exceptional circumstances not requiring compliance with provisions of EC 5-5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility relating to the Florida Bar.
The court finds that executrix’ condition and ability were such that she knew the character of the gift to the attorney; that the will was prepared and mailed to her days before she traveled to the attorney’s office and executed it and that at the execution she stated she wanted to will everything to the attorney; that after the execution of the will she had sufficient time and opportunity to alter its contents; that the relationship between the testatrix and any of her heirs who were omitted in the will was such as to explain the manner in which she disposed of her property (as to which see, for example, respondent’s exhibit no. 10 being an undated letter to testatrix, and see testimony of Mrs. Hazel Howell James); that the beneficiary — attorney Joe T. Martin — had maintained a relationship with the testatrix more than that of mere attorney and client (as to which see, for example, respondent’s composite exhibit no. 8 being letters from the testatrix to Mr. Martin and copies of letters from Mr. Martin to the testatrix re saving property, parole application from the federal penetentiary in which the testatrix was situate, and efforts to improve the testatrix’ morale and spiritual life); that the size of the gifts or estate at first blush would appear considerable (no estate inventory having been filed), however, certain property in Brevard County is the subject of pending civil action no. 58256 wherein W. Robert Smith, trustee, (an attorney) is plaintiff, and certain property in Polk County was or is the subject of a civil action wherein A. T. Rossetter and Mona J. Rossetter are plaintiffs and one Lucian Delk is defendant; that the testatrix handled her own bank checking account right up to the month of her death and on March 19, 1973 borrowed $1,000 via signature *199promissory note from the First National Bank of Lake Wales, Lake Wales, Florida..
Whereupon, the court finds and orders that the testatrix was possessed of testamentary capacity and was not the victim of undue influence on December 15th, 1972 when her last will and testament was duly executed, witnessed and published.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. of Coketine Bray Carpenter v. Carpenter, 253 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1971)
- In re Est. of Madelon C. Reid, 138 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)