IN RE: ESTATE OF WILLIAM C. WILKINS, J. S. WILKINS
v.
PHILIP W. WILKINS, GENEVIEVE WILKINS, ATDIS ARMSTRONG, EULALIA W. ABNEY, JOINED BY HER HUSBAND, A. C. ABNEY
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.
In this probate appeal, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed a lower court's decision to reverse the probate of William C. Wilkins' will on the ground of undue influence. Though the testator had testamentary capacity, evidence showed undue influence by the testator's brother—a major beneficiary—was exercised to such an extent as to invalidate the will entirely.
The will is invalid and the judgment reversing its probate is affirmed. The evidence established undue influence to such an extent as to entirely invalidate the will, though the testator did possess testamentary capacity at the time of execution.
“The evidence fails to establish as a fact that the testator was not of testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the Will. The record shows the exercise of undue influence to such an extent as to entirely invalidate the Will”
The court's holding that while capacity existed, undue influence was the dispositive factor rendering the will invalid.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam C. Wilkins executed a will that was initially admitted to probate by the County Judge. The will was challenged by J. S. Wilkins and others on …
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 Testamentary Capacity cases and more on FLexlaw
— This is the second appearance of this case in this Court. See Wilkins v. Wilkins, 128 Fla. 273, 174 Sou. 412.
Pursuant to the going down of the mandate, the Circuit Court of Lake County entered its judgment reversing the Order of Circuit Judge Koonce, acting as County Judge, admitting the alleged Will to probate.
The judgment of the Circuit Court from which this appeal is taken concludes as follows:
“It seems that the Chancellor acting in capacity as Probate Judge, if he was acting in that capacity, was in error in his conclusions upon the testimony in the cause, and that his ruling thereon should be reversed, and if this Chancellor has any jurisdiction in the matter which the Supreme Court says he does have by virtue of a Statute, and the ruling of the Judge acting in capacity as Probate Judge is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Probate Court of Lake County, Florida, for further consideration in accordance with this ruling and the order admitting the will to probate is reversed.
Done and ordered at Chambers at Brooksvilie, Florida, this 6th day of April, A. D. 1938.”
*88The language interpolated as follows: “and if this Chancellor has any jurisdiction in the matter which the Supreme Court says he does have by virtue of a Statute’ may be said to evidence a doubt in the mind of the Court as to whether or not it had jurisdiction and may be eliminated as surplusage because that point was definitely settled in the opinion of this Court, supra, filed here on May 21, 1937, and he holding in that opinion became the law in this case.
The Will was attacked upon two grounds: (1) that the testator was without testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the Will, and, (2) that the Will was invalid because its execution was the result of undue influence exercised over the testator by his brother, one of the major beneficiaries of the Will.
The evidence fails to establish as a fact that the testator was not of testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the Will. The record shows the exercise of undue influence to such an extent as to entirely invalidate the Will and, therefore, the judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Ellis, C. J., and Whitfield, Brown, and Buford, J. J., concur.
Terrell, J., dissents.
Chapman, J., disqualified.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wilkins v. Wilkins, 141 Fla. 188 (Fla. 1939)…a, this 2nd day of August, A. D. 1939.” Another phase of the relationship and transactions between J. S. Wilkins and W. C. Wilkins was before this Court in the case of Wilkins v. Wilkins, 128 Fla. 273, 174 Sou. 412, and again in Wilkins v. Wilkins, 136 Fla. 86, 186 Sou. 826. In the latter case we held: “The will was attacked upon two grounds: (1) That the testator was without testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the will, and (2) that the will was invalid because its execution was the re…
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. of William C. Wilkins v. Wilkins, 128 Fla. 273 (Fla. 1937)