ROBINSON MYERS
v.
ROSA PLEASANT, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF LUCY MYERS PURKETH, DECEASED
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.
Robinson Myers contested the probate of his sister Lucy Myers Purketh's will, claiming she lacked testamentary capacity and was unduly influenced by the executrix Rosa Pleasant. The county judge initially denied probate, but the circuit court reversed, and the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's decision allowing probate of the will.
The court held that the contestant failed to meet his burden of overcoming by preponderance of the evidence the prima facie case made by the subscribing witnesses and failed to prove the testatrix was mentally incapable of making a will. The circuit court properly reversed the county judge's denial of probate.
“The burden was on the contestant to overcome by preponderance of the evidence the prima facie of the will made by the subscribing witnesses and to prove that the testatrix was mentally incapable of making a will when it was executed.”
Establishes the legal standard and burden of proof in will contest cases
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLucy Myers Purketh died and Rosa Pleasant presented her purported will for probate in Duval County in March 1931. Robinson Myers, the deceased's broth…
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 Correctness On Appeal cases and more on FLexlaw
On the 26th day of March, 1931, Rosa Pleasant presented for probate in the County Judge’s Court of Duval County an instrument purporting to be the last will and testament of Lucy Myers Purketh, deceased.
On the same day one Robinson Myers, a brother of deceased, filed caveat and on the 3rd day of April, 1931, filed his petition to contest the probate of the alleged will upon the ground that the deceased did not possess testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will and that the will was executed under the undue influence exerted upon the deceased by Rosa Pleasant. Rosa Pleasant filed answer. Issues were tried before the County Judge, who; on final hearing, denied probate of the purported will.
Appeal was taken to the Circuit Court and on October 10th, 1933, Honorable George Couper Gibbs, Judge of the *716Circuit Court of Duval County, entered an order reversing the judgment of the County Judge’s Court. Thereupon, appeal is brought before this Court for review.
The Circuit Judge reviewed the pleadings and the evidence with apparent thoroughness and wrote a lengthy opinion, a large part of which, however, was taken up with a history of the case. He has reviewed in his opinion the applicable cases reported from this- Court and also cases from many other jurisdictions.
In the case of Bronson v. Bronson, 113 Fla. 617, 152 So. 60, we said:
“A careful review of the evidence does not make it appear that the circuit judge was clearly wrong in his findings on the facts. Nor can it be said that the circuit judge, in reversing the probate court, misapprehended the legal effect of the evidence. The presumption is that the judgment of the circuit court as the court of first appeal is correct, and that presumption not having been overthrown by a demonstration of error in this Court, the circuit court’s judgment must be allowed to stand.”
By indulging the presumption above mentioned we would arrive at the conclusion that the judgment of the Circuit Court should be affirmed.
Aside from this, however, we find from our study of the record that the facts of this case are not materially different from those which existed in the case of Smith v. Clements, 114 Fla. 614, 154 Sou. 520, and that case was, as stated in the opinion, in many respects like that of Ziegler v. Brown, 112 Fla. 421, 150 Sou. 608. In both of those rases the probate of the will was allowed.
The burden was on the contestant to overcome by preponderance of the evidence the prima facie of the will made by the subscribing witnesses and to prove that the testatrix *717was mentally incapable of making a will when it was executed. Farnstrom, et al., v. Taylor, 107 Fla. 490, 145 Sou. 208. See also Hamilton v. Morgan, 93 Fla. 311, 112 Sou. 80.
We do not think a delineation of the evidence would serve •any useful purpose. It is sufficient to say that applying the evidence to the legal principles enunciated in the cases above referred to and authorities therein cited, the judgment of the Circuit Court should be affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Affirmed.'
Ellis, P. J., and Terrell, J., concur.
Whitfield, C. J., and Brown and Davis, J. J., concur in the opinion and judgment.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Kiggins' Estate. Kiggins v. Peterson, 67 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1953)…r because the record is wholly devoid of any evidence to sustain the charge. The burden of overthrowing a will on the ground of lack of testamentary capacity is a heavy one and must be sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. Myers v. Pleasant, 118 Fla. 715, 160 So. 204, wherein the contestant did not meet his burden to prove by preponderance of the evidence the invalidity of the will and lack of mental incapacity of testatrix, and therefore we affirmed the Circuit Court’s reversal of an order denying…
-
In re Est. of Charles E. Aldrich v. Acton, 148 Fla. 121 (Fla. 1941)…te of Starr v. Wilson, 125 Fla. 536, 170 So. 620; Ziegler v. Brown, 112 Fla. 421, 150 So. 608; Hamilton v. Morgan, 93 Fla. 311, 112 So. 80; Sweetser v. Ladd, 52 Fla. 663, 41 So. 705; Henson v. Denniston, 124 Fla. 843, 169 So. 624; Myers v. Pleasant, 118 Fla. 715, So. 204; Estate of Donnelly, 137 Fla. 459; 188 So. 108; Wartman v. Burleson, 139 Fla. 458, 190 So. 789; Rich v. Hallman, 106 Fla. 348, 143 So. 292; In- re: Starr’s Estate, 125 Fla. 536, 170 So. 620; Adams v. Saunders, et al139 Fla. 730, 191 So. 312…
-
In re Est. of Wilma Lucille Witt v. The First Nat'l Bank OF Clearwater, 139 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962)…e sustained by a preponderance of the evidence. In re Bailey’s Estate, Fla.App.1960, 122 So. 2d 243; In re Kiggin’s Estate, Fla.1953, 67 So. 2d 915. This burden lies with the will contestant in such cases as the instant one. Myers v. Pleasant, 1935, 118 Fla. 715, 160 So. 204. This was the ruling made below and we perceive no error in that respect. As grounds for the assertion that the deceased lacked sufficient testamentary capacity, the petition for revocation of probate stated, in part: “(a) Sometime in…
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
- Neva Hamilton v. A. J. Morgan Under the Instrument Offered for Probate as the Last Will and Testament of Bartlett Hamilton, 93 Fla. 311 (Fla. 1927)
- Fernstrom v. Taylor, 107 Fla. 490 (Fla. 1933)
- Ziegler v. Lawford G. Brown, 112 Fla. 421 (Fla. 1933)
- Bettie E. Smith v. Clements, 114 Fla. 614 (Fla. 1934)
- Ina L. Bronson v. Bronson, 113 Fla. 617 (Fla. 1933)