ESTATE OF JOSEFINA MADRIGAL, APPELLANT,
v.
ROMULADO MADRIGAL, 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 trial court's findings of fact supporting undue influence were supported by competent, substantial evidence, and thus affirmed the order revoking probate.
The Estate of Josefina Madrigal appealed an order revoking probate of a will, which was based on the trial court's conclusion that the will was procur…
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
The Estate of Josefina Madrigal appeals from an order revoking probate of the Last Will and Testament of Josefina Madrigal, based on the trial court’s conclusion that it was procured by the undue influence of the sole beneficiary. We affirm.
A presumption of undue influence arises “if a substantial beneficiary under a will occupies a confidential relationship with the testator and is active in *829procuring the contested will.” In re Estate of Carpenter, 253 So.2d 697, 701 (Fla.1971). As this Court explained in Diaz v. Ashworth, 963 So.2d 731, 735 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007):
[Wjhere the proponent of a will satisfies, prima facie, the will is facially proper, and the contestant thereafter satisfies, prima facie, a presumption of undue influence in the making of the will, the proponent of the will has the burden of proving the will was not the product of undue influence. That burden must be met by a preponderance of the evidence as determined by the trier of fact.
In the instant case, following an evidentiary hearing, the trial court entered an order making specific findings of facts and concluding that the sole beneficiary procured the testator’s last will and testament by undue influence. As the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by competent, substantial evidence, and the findings of fact support the trial court’s conclusion of undue influence, we affirm the order under review. See Estate of Brock, 692 So.2d 907, 913 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996) (“[OJur scope of review requires us to accept the factual findings of the trial court so long as there is support for them by competent substantial evidence. It is axiomatic that the trial court’s resolution of conflicting evidence will not be disturbed by a reviewing court in the absence of a clear showing of error, or that the conclusions reached are erroneous.”).
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Swiss v. Flanagan, 329 So. 3d 199 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)…17 So. 3d 1179, 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021); see In re Est. of Murphy, 184 So. 3d 1221, 1227 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (providing that the application of an evidentiary presumption is subject to a de novo standard of review); Estate of Madrigal v. Madrigal, 22 So. 3d 828, 829 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (noting that affirmance was warranted where the trial court’s findings of fact were supported by competent, substantial evidence and the findings of fact support the trial court’s determination of undue influence). In th…
-
Marvalene Hannibal and Kendra Matthews v. Portia Brandy Navarro and Alzata Thurston, 317 So. 3d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. of Coketine Bray Carpenter v. Carpenter, 253 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1971)
- Est. OF Conway Brock v. Newman D. Brock, 692 So. 2d 907 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)
- Diaz v. Ashworth, 963 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007)