IN RE ESTATE OF BURRELL L. JOINER, DECEASED. MARY TOM (JANE) SUBER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF BURRELL L. JOINER, DECEASED, PETITIONER,
v.
LULA G. OLIVER, MRS. B. F. EASTERLIN, SR., HENRY PHILLIPS, A. V. PHILLIPS AND W. ALFRED PHILLIPS, RESPONDENT
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 Florida Supreme Court held that a presumption of undue influence in will contests requires both a confidential relationship between the beneficiary and testator AND active procurement of the will's execution by the beneficiary. Mere confidential relations alone are insufficient to shift the burden of proof.
A presumption of undue influence arises only when a beneficiary in a confidential relationship with the testator was active in procuring the execution of the will. Confidential relations alone, without active procurement, do not raise such a presumption or shift the burden of proof to the proponent of the will.
“To authorize a court to deny or revoke the probate of a will on the ground of undue influence, there must be active use of such undue influence for the purpose of securing the execution of the will to such an extent as to coerce the mind of the testator, so that it cannot be said that the testator was acting voluntarily, of his or her own free will and volition.”
Establishes the standard requiring active use of influence, not merely confidential relations, to support undue influence claims.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMary Tom Suber, as executrix of Burrell L. Joiner's estate, sought probate of his will. The probate court found no evidence the beneficiary exercised …
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
This cause is before us on petition for writ of certiorari to the District Court of Appeal, Third District. We find jurisdictional conflict between the decision sought to be reviewed1 and prior decisions of this Court.2
The sole question is whether, as a matter of law, on the facts of this cause, there was a presumption of undue influence. The facts upon which the district court found that such presumption did arise are set forth in its opinion and will not be recited here.
The rule in Florida is that a presumption of undue influence arises when a beneficiary who occupied a confidential relationship with the testator was active in procuring the execution of the will.3
The Court, In re Starr’s Estate,4 stated:
“To authorize a court to deny or revoke the probate of a will on the ground of *162undue influence, there must be active use of such undue influence for the purpose of securing the execution of the will to such an extent as to coerce the mind of the testator, so that it cannot be said that the testator was acting voluntarily, of his or her own free will and volition. Confidential relations between the testator in his lifetime and the legatee who offers the will for probate are not alone sufficient to raise a presumption of undue influence and cast the burden of proof upon the proponent in that regard. * * * ”
In In re Peters’ Estate 5 this Court held:
“It is established that mere confidential relations between a testator and a legatee are not alone sufficient to raise a presumption of undue influence so as to impose the burden of proof on the latter.”
In this cause the probate court found there was no evidence the beneficiary exercised undue or improper influence. Neither the trial court nor the appellate court found that the beneficiary was active in procuring the execution of the will. The record indicated the beneficiary was neither present when the testator and his attorney discussed the will, nor at its execution and that she did not know its contents.6 A confidential relationship, such as a guardianship, unless accompanied by the element of active procurement, will not invoke the presumption of undue influence.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, is quashed with directions to affirm the judgment of the county judge.
ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and THOR-NAL, O’CONNELL and HOBSON (Retired), JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beach v. Farrior, 164 So. 2d 561 (Fla. 2d DCA 1964)…PER CURIAM. Affirmed. See In re Joiner’s Estate, Fla.1963, 156 So. 2d 161. SMITH, C. J., and ALLEN and KANNER (Ret.), JJ., concur.…
-
Allen v. Gore, 387 So. 2d 535 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980)…ere existence of a confidential relationship between decedent and beneficiary, however, does not raise a presumption of undue influence unless accompanied by the element of active procurement. In re Estate of Carpenter, supra; In re Joiner’s Estate, 156 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1963). In determining the existence of active procurement, courts apply several criteria: (a) the presence of the beneficiary at the execution of the will; (b) presence of the beneficiary on those occasions when testator expressed a desire to…
-
In re Est. of Agnes v. Robertson, 372 So. 2d 1138 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…and a beneficiary, even though the principal one, does not raise a presumption of undue influence so as to impose the burden upon that beneficiary of establishing that execution of the will was not obtained by undue influence. In re Joiner’s Estate, 156 So. 2d 161 (Fla.1963), conformed, 156 So. 2d 166 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963) and In re Duke’s Estate, 219 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969). Furthermore, the record is devoid of any evidence whatsoever which might lead to the inference of “active procurement” on the part o…
Previewing 3 of 10 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re the Est. of Clara R. Starr v. Wilson, 125 Fla. 536 (Fla. 1935)
- In re the Est. of Blanche N. Peters v. Fla. Nat'l Bank of Jacksonville, 155 Fla. 453 (Fla. 1945)
- In re Est. of Madelon C. Reid, 138 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- In re Est. of Charles E. Aldrich v. Acton, 148 Fla. 121 (Fla. 1941)
- In re Est. of Kinney Kellum Knight. Dexter Lowell Knight v. Knight, 108 So. 2d 629 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959)
- In re Est. of Burrell L. Joiner v. Phillips and W. Alfred Phillips, 147 So. 2d 563 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- In re Reid's Estate, 154 So. 2d 840 (Fla. 1962)