IN RE ESTATE OF LILLIAN P. BARFIELD, 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.
This case involves an appeal from an order dismissing a petition to revoke probate of a will. The appellate court reversed the dismissal, finding the petition's allegations of undue influence sufficient to proceed.
The allegations in the petition were sufficient to state a claim for undue influence, and the trial court erred in dismissing the petition.
“We believe that when taken together these allegations are sufficient as a pleading thereby entitling petitioner to her day in court.”
Establishes the court's reasoning for reversing the dismissal.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceEdna Nichols filed a petition to revoke the probate of Lillian Barfield's will, alleging that Juanita Tallent, the sole beneficiary, unduly influenced…
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
On June 10, 1966, petitioner, Edna Nichols, filed her third amended petition for revocation of probate of the last will and testament of Lillian P. Barfield, alleging that the will was procured through undue influence by Juanita Tallent. This appeal is from an order of the trial court dismissing that petition, after finding that it contained only conclusory allegations. We reverse.
In capsule form the petition sets forth the following allegations: (1) Juanita Tallent procured the drafting and execution of the will; (2) Juanita Tallent is the sole beneficiary under the will; (3) Juanita Tallent lived next door to decedent, spent considerable time in decedent’s home, was her attorney in fact and handled numerous transactions for decedent; (4) Juanita Tallent stood in a fiduciary relationship to decedent at the time the will was executed; (5) Juanita Tallent exerted undue influence on decedent; (6) the will was procured by such undue influence; (7) the execution of the will was concealed from other interested parties by Juanita Tallent.
We believe that when taken together these allegations are sufficient as a pleading thereby entitling petitioner to her day in court. In re Burton’s Estate, Fla.1950, 45 So.2d 873; In re Mach’s Estate, 1935, 118 Fla. 421, 159 So. 519. But see Zinnser v. Gregory, Fla. 1955, 77 So.2d 611.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.
OWEN, J., and GOODING, MARION W., Associate Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Hattie S. Zinnser v. Gregory, 77 So. 2d 611 (Fla. 1955)
- In re Estate Emil Mach, 118 Fla. 421 (Fla. 1935)