SAMUEL H. HALL, JR., AND YASSIN S. HALL, APPELLANTS,
v.
ELSA EMILY 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.
In this probate dispute, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's rejection of an undue influence claim challenging a mother's will and trust executed near the end of her life. The court emphasized that appellants failed to present evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court's findings, as required on appeal.
The trial court committed no error in denying the petition for revocation. The court affirmed because competent substantial evidence supported the trial court's findings that the documents were properly executed at the decedent's request without active procurement by the appellee, and the undue influence claim was properly rejected based on credible expert testimony and witness testimony regarding the decedent's mental capacity.
[1] Appellate courts must affirm a trial court's conclusions when there is competent substantial evidence to support them.
[2] Appellants are obligated to present the statement of facts and interpret evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the conclusions of the finder of fact.
Previewing 2 of 5 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“The appellants are obligated to provide a statement of facts and to interpret the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the conclusions of the finder of fact.”
Establishes the fundamental appellate standard that appellants must present evidence favorably to the trial court's findings
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceThe decedent, Mrs. Hall, a mother of four and grandmother of three, executed a will and trust documents late in life. The appellants (her sons) challe…
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 Execution cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from adversary proceedings in the probate, court — an undue influence.claim and petition to revoke the probate of a will and-trust. The trial court devoted , two weeks of trial time to the claims, ■ carefully, considered evidentiary rulings relating,to the,expert psychiatric witnesses, viewed a video of the decedent’s execution of the selfrproving will, and committed "no error in denying the petition.
Ordinarily the appellate phase of this intra-family .dispute — launched by the appellants against a logical and equitable program of lifetime gifts and transfers after death by a mother of four and grandmother of three — would be consigned to “a quiet interment in the form of a PCA.”1 We affirm, and write only to reiterate a fundamental tenet of appellate advocacy.
The Light Most Favorable
The “light most'favorable” is not a" reference to a Florida sunrise. The appellants are obligated to provide a statement of facts and to interpret the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the conclusions- of the finder of fact. Turner v. Lorber, 360 So.2d 101, 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Expressed another way,' “Where there is-competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s conclusions we must affirm.” James P. Driscoll, Inc., a Gould, 521 So.2d 301, 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (citing Turner).
*685The presentation of the record by the appellants in their initial brief in the present case is not a summary of the evidence in the light most favorable to' the- trial court’s findings. For example, the trial court found that the appellants were not credible, and this conclusion is supported by inconsistencies in their testimony.
The tmdue influence- claim regarding the late Mrs. Hall’s testamentary capacity was rejected based on the testimony of persons present at the execution of the challenged documents and expert testimony following a review of medical records and videotape of the decedent.2 The ap-pellee’s expert regarding mental capacity was a board-certified - physician with an M.D. degree from Yale University, a residency at Harvard, and board certification in geriatric psychiatry, serving as medical director of Miami Jewish Health Systems and as an associate professor at the University of Miami Medical School.
The record, viewed in this required light, further establishes that the challenged documents were properly .executed, that they were prepared at the request of the decedent, and that they were not actively procured by the appellee (a daughter) serving as personal representative under the will. The appellee established that she was not a substantial beneficiary under the trust.
For these reasons, the trial court’s “Order Denying Petition for Revocation of Probate of Will and Trust” is affirmed, as is the subsequent order denying rehearing.
■ Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ashear v. Sklarey, 247 So. 3d 574 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)…Bank United, 115 So. 3d 411, 412 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)). “Thus, they are reviewed for competent, substantial evidence.” Underwater Eng’g Servs., Inc. v. Util. Bd. of City of Key West, 194 So. 3d 437, 444 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); see also Hall v. Hall, 190 So. 3d 683, 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). A trial court’s application of the relevant statutes to its factual determinations is reviewed de novo. See Stock Bldg. Supply of Fla, Inc. v. Soares Da Costa Constr. Servs., 76 So. 3d 313, 316 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011). III.…
-
Trump Endeavor 12 LLC v. Fernich, Inc., 216 So. 3d 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 2017)…only in the event this court reverses the foreclosure final judgment, and does not otherwise challenge the merits of that judgment. . Underwater Eng'g Svcs., Inc. v. Utility Bd. of City of Key West, 194 So. 3d 437 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Hall v. Hall, 190 So. 3d 683, 684 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016). . According to the trial testimony of Paint Spot’s president (which testimony the trial court found credible), Paint Spot dealt directly with M&P only and did not know that Straticon and T&G were the project’s general contr…
-
U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Stokes (Fla. 3d DCA 2019)…ause there is competent substantial evidence in the record to support the trial court’s factual findings, we affirm. See, e.g., Applegate v. Barnett Bank, 377 So. 2d 1150, 1152 (Fla. 1980); Shaw v. Shaw, 334 So. 2d 13, 16 (Fla. 1976); Hall v. Hall, 190 So. 3d 683 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Lahodik v. Lahodik, 969 So. 2d 533, 535 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007); Desvigne v. Downtown Towing Co., 865 So. 2d 541, 542 (Fla. 3d DCA 2003). Affirmed.…
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
- Turner v. Lorber, 360 So. 2d 101 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)
- James P. Driscoll, Inc. v. Gould, 521 So. 2d 301 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988)
- Univ. OF Miami v. Yulexi Exposito, 87 So. 3d 803 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)