IN RE ESTATE OF GEORGE SCHOR, DECEASED. LEO SCHOR AND ROSE MICHAELS SCHOR, APPELLANTS,
v.
MAX SCHOR, DAVID SCHOR, JACK (JACOB) SCHOR, AND FAE (FAY) SCHOR GLASS, APPELLEES
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 appellants, named as co-executors and sole beneficiaries in the deceased's will, appealed a probate court's order setting aside the will. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the appellants failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence that arises when a person procures a will's execution and is named as a substantial beneficiary.
The court affirmed the probate judge's order setting aside the will, holding that the appellants, who procured the will's execution and were named as sole beneficiaries, failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence.
“one who procures the execution of a will and is named therein as a substantial beneficiary thereunder has a burden of overcoming a presumption of undue influence exerted by him upon the testator”
Establishes the legal standard that the appellants must overcome to validate the will
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceLeo Schor and Rose Michaels Schor were named as co-executors and sole beneficiaries in the last will and testament of George Schor. The appellants pro…
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
By this appeal the appellants, co-executors and sole beneficiaries of the last will and testament of the deceased, seek review of a trial judge’s order setting aside the
will which appointed them as co-executors and named them as sole beneficiaries.
We affirm the action of the probate judge upon the authority of In Re Aldrich’s Estate, 148 Fla. 121, 3 So.2d 856; Zinnser v. Gregory, Fla.1955, 77 So.2d 611; In re Krieger’s Estate, Fla. 1956, 88 So.2d 497; In Re Reid’s Estate, Fla.App.1962, 138 So. 2d 342, and in particular upon those authorities mentioned in the cited cases, which state the proposition that one who procures the execution of a will and is named therein as a substantial beneficiary thereunder has a burden of overcoming a presumption of undue influence exerted by him upon the testator.
The order of the probate court having arrived here with a presumption of correctness [see: State v. Town of Sweetwater, Fla.1959, 112 So.2d 852; Global Aero Service, Inc. v. Lloyd Aereo Boliviano, S. A., Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 708], if it can be supported on any theory it should be affirmed. See: Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., Fla.1962, 137 So.2d 222; Crudele v. Cook, Fla.App.1963, 165 So.2d 424. It is apparent, measuring the record on this appeal, that there was sufficient evidence before the trial court to indicate the confidential relationship between the appellants and tlie deceased; that they procured the drafting and the execution of the will and their evidence failed .to rebut the presumption [above referred to] of undue influence that arises out of the fact that they were named as sole beneficiaries in the will.
Therefore, the order here under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Beck v. Beck, 383 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980)…loans claimed to have been personally made to the estate. An order of the probate court arrives in the appellate court clothed with the presumption of its correctness and will be affirmed if it can be supported on any theory. In re Estate of Schor, 172 So. 2d 888 (Fla.3d DCA 1965). The findings of a probate court are entitled to the same weight as the findings of any other trier of fact. In re Estate of Winslow, 147 So. 2d 613 (Fla.2d DCA 1962). The burden is on [*273] the appellant to show that the findings…
-
The Est. OF George Drew Conger v. Conger, 414 So. 2d 230 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982)…ated in Beck v. Beck, 383 So. 2d 268 (Fla. 3d DCA 1980): “An order of the probate court arrives in the appellate court clothed with the presumption of its correctness and will be affirmed if it can be supported on any theory. In re Estate of Schor, 172 So. 2d 888 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965). The findings of a probate court are entitled to the same weight as the findings of any other trier of fact. In re Estate of Winslow, 147 So. 2d 613 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). The burden is on the appellant to show that the findings and…
-
Visingardi v. Tirone, 178 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)…he action of the trial judge can be sustained upon any theory, it should not be interfered with. See: Berkman v. Miami National Bank, Fla.App. 1962, 143 So. 2d 535; Crudele v. Cook, Fla.App. 1963, 165 So. 2d 424; In re Estate of Schor, Fla.App.1965, 172 So. 2d 888 (opinion filed March 9, 1965). In support of his argument that there was a conflict as to informed consent, the appellant cites Bowers v. Talmage, Fla.App.1963, 159 So. 2d 888; Russell v. [*137] Harwick, Fla.App.1964, 166 So. 2d 904. The appellee d…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Cohen v. Mohawk, Inc., 137 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 1962)
- Hattie S. Zinnser v. Gregory, 77 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1955)
- 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)
- State v. Town OF Sweetwater, 112 So. 2d 852 (Fla. 1959)
- Global Aero Serv., Inc. v. Lloyd Aereo Boliviano, S.A., 157 So. 2d 708 (Fla. 3d DCA 1963)
- Whitworth v. State, 165 So. 2d 424 (Fla. 1st DCA 1964)
- In re Est. of Frances Krieger, 88 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1956)