IN RE ESTATE OF JOSE C. PEREZ, DECEASED. MARY FRANCES DRESSING, APPELLANT,
v.
ESTATE OF JOSE C. PEREZ, DECEASED, 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.
Mary Frances Dressing appealed a probate court order denying her petition to revoke the will of Jose C. Perez on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, fraud, duress, and undue influence. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the county judge's findings were supported by substantial competent evidence.
The court affirmed the probate order, holding that there was substantial competent evidence to support the county judge's findings that the testator had testamentary capacity at the time of execution and that the appellant failed to meet her burden of establishing undue influence or lack of capacity.
“An order of a county judge sitting in probate will not be disturbed on appeal where there is substantial competent evidence to sustain his findings, unless he has misinterpreted the legal effect of the evidence.”
Establishes the appellate standard of review for probate matters
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJose C. Perez was deceased and his will was probated. The appellant challenged the will, arguing that the testator lacked testamentary capacity and th…
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 Revocation Of Probate cases and more on FLexlaw
This is an appeal from a final probate order of the County Judge’s Court of Monroe County which denied appellant’s petition for revocation of probate of a will. Two points on appeal are presented. The first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to testamentary capacity. The second urges that the .evidence of fraud, duress or undue influence was so strong as to render erroneous the order sustaining the probate of the will. We affirm.
Each point presented requires a review of the evidence, and we think that in each instance there was sufficient evidence to sustain the finding of the county judge. An order of a county judge sitting in probate will not be disturbed on appeal where there is 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 will, he was competent. The burden of establishing the lack of testamentary capacity is on the will contestant. Schaefer v. Vogle, 88 Fla. 170, 102 So. 7 (1924); In Re Bailey’s Estate, Fla.App. 1960, 122 So.2d 243. Mere old age, physical frailty or sickness are not necessarily inconsistent with testamentary capacity, particularly where the will appears to have been made under fair circumstances and was not unnatural in the disposition of the property. See Heasley v. Evans, Fla.App.1958, 104 So.2d 854.
It is true, as urged by the appellant, that the amount of undue influence need not be great where a testator is weak and his intellect clouded. In re Reid’s *60Estate, Fla.App.1962, 138 So. 342; see cases collected at 57 Am.Jur., Wills, § 356. Nevertheless, the burden of establishing undue influence is upon the party who alleges it and it may not be inferred from the existence of testator’s condition. See Gardiner v. Goertner, 110 Fla. 377, 149 So. 186 (1932). We do not feel that the appellant has sustained the burden of proof necessary to overthrow the will on the grounds of testamentary incapacity and undue influence.
Having decided the case upon the principles of law set forth, we do not think that it is necessary or useful to detail the conflicting evidence before the county judge. See In Re Zimmerman’s Estate, Fla. 1956, 84 So.2d 560.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. of Ann v. Dalton, 246 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 3d DCA 1971)…l, we will not disturb an order of the county judge in a will contest if there is substantial, competent evidence to sustain the court’s findings, unless the court misinterpreted the legal effect of the evidence. In re Estate of Perez, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 58. We find substantial competent evidence in this record to sustain the finding of the trial judge that there was no presumption of undue influence here, as a matter of law, and that even if such presumption existed it had been overcome by clear and…
-
In re Est. of Nellie E. ZIY v. Bowen, 213 So. 2d 503 (Fla. 3d DCA 1968)…s. We will not disturb the order of the county court in a will contest if there is substantial competent evidence to sustain the court’s findings, unless the court misinterpreted the legal effect of the evidence. In re Estate of Perez, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 58. See also In re Estate of Smith, Fla.App.1968, 212 So. 2d 74 (opinion filed June 26, 1968). Affirmed.…
-
In re Est. of Donella Morgan Duke, 219 So. 2d 124 (Fla. 2d DCA 1969)…nges in the will. Each time she answered “yes, sir.” She thereupon executed the will in proper form before the requisite witnesses. The burden of establishing undue influence was on the contestant, Mrs. Fus-sell. In re Perez’s Estate, Fla.App.1968, 206 So. 2d 58. And the mere confidential relationship, in absence of the element of active procurement, does not raise a presumption of undue influence in execution of a will. In re Joiner’s Estate, Fla.1963, 156 So. 2d 161. Kindness and solicitude are not eviden…
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
- Gardiner v. Goertner, 110 Fla. 377 (Fla. 1932)
- In re Est. of Wm. F. Zimmerman v. Zimmerman, 84 So. 2d 560 (Fla. 1956)
- Schaefer v. Voyle, 88 Fla. 170 (Fla. 1924)
- Watts v. Newport, 149 Fla. 181 (Fla. 1941)
- Heasley v. Evans, 104 So. 2d 854 (Fla. 2d DCA 1958)
- In re Est. of Catherine B. Bailey v. Bailey, 122 So. 2d 243 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960)
- In re Est. of Helen A. Craig v. Scanlon, 179 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965)