MRS. H. H. DOUGLAS, EXECUTRIX OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF THOMAS O. GOOLSBY, DECEASED, APPELLANT,
v.
C. B. HARDIN, JR., 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 devises and bequests to named beneficiaries who predeceased the testator lapsed, and the testator died intestate as to those provisions.
The testator's will made devises to two brothers and two sisters. The two brothers predeceased the testator without lineal descendants. The will conta…
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 Intestate Succession cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a circuit court order construing certain provisions of a will. Oral argument was not requested and the cause is before this court for decision on the briefs and the record.
By stipulation of the parties it was agreed that paragraphs two and twelve were the portions of the will that should be construed by the court. Under paragraph two, devises and bequests of property were made by the testator to two named brothers and two named sisters. Under paragraph twelve the testator expressed consideration for his other relatives and bestowed upon them his blessings for good health and hap*191piness, but said that his earthly goods were being divided among those who needed his monetary assistance most. The two brothers predeceased the testator, leaving no lineal descendants. There appears no intention in the will to substitute other persons in the place of the deceased devisees, and there was no residuary provision contained in the will.
The court decreed that the devises and gifts to these beneficiaries were to them as individuals and not as a class. See In re Eltzeroth’s Estate, Fla. 1955, 83 So.2d 772. The court determined that the gifts and devises to the brothers lapsed and that as to such devises and bequests the testator died intestate. See section 731.20, Florida Statutes, F.S.A. The court properly applied the cardinal rules of construction. No prejudicial error having been made to appear, the decree is affirmed.
Affirmed.
ALLEN, C. J., and KANNER and SHANNON, JJ„ concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Davis v. Wm. H. Arkenberg, 195 So. 2d 46 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967)…particularly the fact that the beneficiaries were referred to by name, we are altogether persuaded that [*47] the proper construction was placed upon the will by the trial court. We, therefore, affirm by authority of Douglas v. Hardin, Fla.App.1960, 120 So. 2d 190, and In re Eltzeroth’s Estate, Fla.1955, 83 So. 2d 772. See also Magruder v. Magruder, Fla.App.1963, 157 So. 2d 86; 35 Fla.Jur., Wills, § 297. Affirmed. WALDEN, C. J., ANDREWS, J., and McDonald, PARKER LEE, Associate Judge, concur.…
-
Douglas v. Hardin, 125 So. 2d 881 (Fla. 1960)…Appeal dismissed without opinion. 120 So. 2d 190.…
Authorities Cited
- In re Eltzeroth's Estate. George C. Jarrett v. Roscoe G. Eltzeroth, 83 So. 2d 772 (Fla. 1955)