NORMAN ROGERS, AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF GEORGE H. WILKINS, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
MELVIN BARTLEY, 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.
This case involves an appeal from a jury verdict finding that the deceased had contracted to provide for the appellee in his will but failed to do so. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, holding that the evidence met the clear, cogent, and convincing standard required for such contracts.
Yes, the evidence presented at trial met the required standard of proof for establishing a contract to provide for someone in a will.
“The proper rule to be applied in such a case is that the proof of such contract must be clear, cogent, and convincing, and the making of such contract must be established by -disinterested witnesses.”
This quote establishes the legal standard of proof required for contracts to provide for someone in a will.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe appellee claimed that the deceased, George H. Wilkins, had entered into a contract to provide for him in his will. A jury found in favor of the ap…
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 Clear, Cogent, And Convincing Evidence Standard cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Circuit Court for Duval County, based upon a jury verdict, in favor of the plaintiff-appellee on his claim that the deceased contracted to provide for him in his will but failed to do so. The proper rule to be applied in such a case is that the proof of such contract must be clear, cogent, and convincing, and the making of such contract must be established by -disinterested witnesses. First Atlantic 'Na*787tional Bank of Daytona Beach v. Cobbett, Fla., 82 So.2d 870. Traurig v. Spear, Fla. App., 102 So.2d 165. We think that the evidence at the trial measured up to this standard and so, no error appearing in the record, the judgment should be, and it is, affirmed.
Affirmed.
STURGIS, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD, and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Keith v. Culp, 111 So. 2d 278 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)…rden to establish the contract, and it must be established by evidence that is clear and convincing. Exchange Nat. Bank of Tampa v. Bryan, supra; Miller v. Carr, supra; Traurig v. Spear, Fla.App.1958, 102 So. 2d 165; Rogers v. Bartley, Fla.App.1959, 107 So. 2d 786. This last rule applies with full' vigor to an oral contract tp make mutual wills which rule was correctly stated by the chancellor in his findings. Simpson v. Ivey, Fla.1953, 67 So. 2d 687; Lashua v. Cooper, Fla.App.1957, 97 So. 2d 39. These princ…
-
Hagan v. Fabiano Laragione, 205 So. 2d 289 (Fla. 1967)…executor, or administrator, heir at law, next of kin, assignee, legatee, devisee or survivor of such deceased person, * * (e. s.) . 195 So. 2d 246, 248. . Traurig v. Spear, Fla.App.2nd Dist., 102 So. 2d 165; Rogers v. Bartley, Fla.App. 1st Dist., 107 So. 2d 786. . Cf. Sunad, Inc. v. City of Sarasota, Fla., 122 So. 2d 611. .Cf. Brannen v. State, 94 Fla. 656, 114 So. 2d 429, 431, cited by the appellate court for comment on arbitrary rejection of undiscredited testimony of an interested witness, in a situat…
-
Fabiano Laragione v. Hagan, 195 So. 2d 246 (Fla. 2d DCA 1967)…c National Bank v. Cobett, Fla., 82 So. 2d 870; Keith v. Culp, supra. It is true that two of our sister Courts have said that the supporting witnesses must be “disinterested.” Trau-rig v. Spear, Fla.App., 102 So. 2d 165; Rogers v. Bartley, Fla.App., 107 So. 2d 786. Our Supreme Court has nowhere said' that contracts to make mutually reciprocal' wills must be proved by “disinterested” witnesses, nor do we believe it would make-such an unqualified pronouncement. Under the rules of the common law all persons int…
Authorities Cited
- First Atl. Nat'l Bank OF Daytona Beach v. Olive S. Cobbett, 82 So. 2d 870 (Fla. 1955)
- Dorothy v. Traurig, 102 So. 2d 165 (Fla. 3d DCA 1958)