IN RE ESTATE OF ELSIE DENNIS MAYNARD, DECEASED. RALPH BRITTINGHAM ET AL., APPELLANTS,
v.
LOIS D. JARVIS ET AL., 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 court affirmed the probate of a lost or destroyed will under Florida Statute § 732.27(3), holding that a correct copy of the will's contents need not contain copies of the testator's or witnesses' signatures to qualify as the equivalent of one witness for probate purposes.
An unconformed copy lacking signature copies is a correct copy under § 732.27(3) and is the equivalent of one witness when the execution of the original will is proven by other means, such as testimony from the attorney who drew the will.
[1] A correct copy of a lost or destroyed will is admissible to prove the contents of the original will, not its execution.
[2] The requirement of a correct copy under Florida Statute § 732.27(3) does not necessitate the inclusion of the testator's signature or subscribing witnesses' signatures on…
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“No probate of any lost or destroyed will shall be granted until citation has issued and been served upon those who, but for such will, would be entitled to the property thereby bequeathed or devised; or unless clearly and distinctly proved by the testimony of at least two disinterested witnesses, a correct copy being the equivalent of one witness.”
The controlling statute setting forth requirements for probating lost or destroyed wills.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMrs. Maynard's original will was lost or destroyed. The appellee petitioned for establishment and probate of the lost will. A copy of the will was fou…
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 Best Evidence Rule cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellees filed their petition for the establishment of lost or destroyed will. The appellants answered and the appellees introduced into evidence the answers to written interrogatories propounded to the attorney who had drawn the will of Mrs. Maynard. The County Judge then entered the order appealed establishing and probating the lost or destroyed will of Mrs. Maynard. The County Judge established the *924terms and provisions of the original will which he found to be lost or destroyed as being those terms and provisions set forth in the copy of Mrs. Maynard’s will located in her safety deposit box.
Appellants contend that under Florida Statute § 732.27(3), F.S.A. which reads:
“No probate of any lost or destroyed will shall be granted until citation has issued and been served upon those who, but for such will, would be entitled to the property thereby bequeathed or devised; or unless clearly and distinctly proved by the testimony of at least two disinterested witnesses, a correct copy being the equivalent of one witness.”
the unconformed copy of Mrs. Maynard’s will cannot be considered a correct copy as required by the statute and, therefore, is not the equivalent of one witness.
There is sufficient proof in the record, namely, the answer to interrogatories filed by the attorney who drew the will, to prove the execution of the original will and that it was either lost or destroyed.
The correct copy referred to in Florida Statute § 732.27(3), F.S.A. is not for the purpose of proving the execution of the original will but for proving the actual contents of the original will. Therefore, it is not necessary that the copy contained a copy of the signature of the testator and copies of the subscribing witnesses.
In Stewart v. Johnson, 1940, 142 Fla. 425, 194 So. 869, it was held at p. 872:
“It is contended here that the provisions of this statute have not been met because the purported copy did not contain copy of the signature of the testator a copy of the signatures of the subscribing witnesses. We cannot agree with this contention. The copy of the will is admissible as evidence because it is the best evidence available as to the actual contents of the will which was executed. The copy is not for the purpose of showing the execution. In this case the execution of the will, of which the copy was presented to the Court, was sufficiently proved by the attorney who prepared the will and made the carbon copy thereof at the same time and by the witnesses who subscribed their names to the executed will.”
Florida Statute § 732.27(3), F.S.A. having been complied with through the answers to interrogatories by the attorney drawing the will and the copy of the will at the same time, the County Judge was eminently correct in entering the order appealed.
Affirmed.
PIERCE, C. J., and McNULTY, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Smith v. Astrid DePARRY ad Litem for Scott P. Smith, III, 86 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…nature [*1233] of the testator or the signatures of the witnesses. Carlton v. Sims (In re Estate of Carlton), 276 So. 2d 832, 833 (Fla.1973); Stewart v. Johnson, 142 Fla. 425, 194 So. 869, 872 (1940); Brittingham v. Jarvis (In re Estate of Maynard), 253 So. 2d 923, 924 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971); Bury, 591 So. 2d at 676-77. III. THE PROBATE COURT’S RULINGS The probate court made two key rulings that the Co-Personal Representatives challenge on appeal. First, the probate court ruled that the copy of the codicil gene…
-
Onelia Padron Lowy v. Roberts, 453 So. 2d 886 (Fla. 3d DCA 1984)…py” under § 733.207(3), see In re Estate of Parker, 382 So. 2d 652 (Fla.1980); Stewart v. Johnson, 142 Fla. 425, 194 So. 869 (1940) (“correct copy” need not contain copies of signatures of testator or subscribing witnesses); In re Estate of Maynard, 253 So. 2d 923 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971) (same) or if, assuming that it is, the expert document examiner qualifies as the “one disinterested witness” required to prove it. See In re Estate of Maynard, supra. . Thus, the widow specifically adopts pages five and six of th…
-
In re Est. OF Georgeina Kero v. DiLEGGE, 591 So. 2d 675 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992)…or or copy of the signatures of the subscribing witnesses. We cannot agree with this contention. The copy is not for the purpose of showing execution. 142 Fla. at 433, 194 So. at 872.1 Stewart was more recently followed in In re Estate of Maynard, 253 So. 2d 923 [*677] (Fla. 2d DCA 1971), where the court rejected an identical contention to that raised here, saying: The correct copy referred to in Florida Statute § 732.27(3), F.S.A. is not for the purpose of proving the execution of the original will but fo…
Authorities Cited
- Benj. F. Stewart v. Johnson, 142 Fla. 425 (Fla. 1940)