IN RE ESTATE OF HELEN A. CRAIG, DECEASED. LUCILLE A. DEGLER, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY D. SCANLON AND MARGARET HARRIS, 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 appellate court affirmed the county judge's order denying probate of the later will, finding substantial competent evidence supported the finding of undue influence.
Appellant petitioned for probate of a will dated October 3, 1963. The county judge denied probate, finding the will was the product of undue influence…
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 Petition For Probate Of Will cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final order of the County Judge’s Court in and for Dade County, Florida. The order denied the appellant’s petition for the probate of an alleged will of October 3, 1963, and admitted to probate a prior will.
The basis for the County Judge’s order was his finding that the will propounded by the appellant, Lucille A. Degler, was the product of undue influence exercised by her upon the testatrix. In the brief filed by the appellant, the single point presented on appeal contends that the trial court’s finding of undue influence is not supported by the record.
In a case similar to the one before this Court, the late Justice Terrell stated:
“ * * * when a total stranger moves into the home with an old lady, secures her confidence, and shows up after her death with a will to what she has that none of her lawful heirs know anything about, and which is surrounded by other suspicious circumstances, the burden is on him to show that he came by it as the free voluntary act of the testatrix * * *." In re Gottschalk’s Estate, 143 Fla. 371, 196 So. 844 (1940), at page 845.
An order of a county judge sitting in probate will not be disturbed on appeal where there is substantial competent evidence to sustain his finding unless he has misinterpreted the legal effect of the evidence as a whole. Watts v. Newport, 149 Fla. 181, 6 So.2d 829 (1941); Heasley v. Evans, Fla.App. 1958, 104 So.2d 854.
The County Judge has made full and complete findings as to the evidentiary facts. An examination of the record reveals *117that there is substantial competent evidence to support these findings, and it does not appear that the trial judge has misinterpreted the legal effect of the evidence. In view of our conclusion, it would serve no useful purpose to present a detailed analysis of the record on appeal.
The order appealed is affirmed upon authority of Watts v. Newport, 149 Fla. 181, 6 So.2d 829 (1941). See also In re Estate of Reid, Fla.App.1962, 138 So.2d 342.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. of Jose C. Perez v. Est. of Jose C. Perez, 206 So. 2d 58 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…substantial competent evidence to sustain his findings, unless he has misinterpreted the legal effect of the evidence. Watts v. Newport, 149 Fla. 181, 6 So. 2d 829; Heasley v. Evans, Fla.App.1958, 104 So. 2d 854; In Re Estate of Craig, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 116. Upon the issue of testamentary capacity, there was evidence that the deceased was very ill, that for long periods of time he did not know what was going on around him, but there was testimony that at the particular time of the execution of the wil…
-
In re Est. of Harry Z. Popovich, 252 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…e probate of a will presented by the appellant. The revocation was upon the ground of undue influence. The points presented are essentially factual in nature and the order is affirmed for the reasons set forth in In Re Estate of Craig, Fla.App.1965, 179 So. 2d 116. Appellant has forcefully argued that the trial judge did not properly apply the rule relating to the burden of proof in the light of the presumption of undue influence. It is urged that the law as set forth in In Re Estate of Carpenter, Fla.App.19…
-
In re Est. of James Durrance, 223 So. 2d 758 (Fla. 4th DCA 1969)…of the record convinces us that the substantially competent evidence supports the finding of the Probate Court. In re Williams’ Estate, Fla.1952, 59 So. 2d 13; Pancoast, v. Pancoast, Fla.App.1958, 107 So. 2d 787; In re Craig’s Estate, Fla.App. 1965, 179 So. 2d 116. Affirmed. WALDEN, C. J., and OWEN, J., and DOWNEY, JAMES C, Associate Judge, concur.…
Authorities Cited
- Watts v. Newport, 149 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1941)
- Heasley v. Evans, 104 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- In re Est. of Madelon C. Reid, 138 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962)
- In re the Est. of Mary Ellen Gottschalk v. Adeline K. Gottschalk, 143 Fla. 371 (Fla. 1940)