IN RE ESTATE OF CLEOPHAS LAROSE, 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.
The court held that there was substantial, competent evidence to support the finding that the testator had testamentary capacity and was not subjected to undue influence.
Appellants, children of the decedent, sought to revoke probate of their father's will, alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. The…
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
Appellants, plaintiffs below, appeal from an order .denying revocation of probate of the will of their father Cleophas LaRose. They had contended that the testator lacked testamentary capacity and was subjected to undue influence by the beneficiary with whom he had lived as man and wife for nineteen years.
The case was tried by County Judge George T. Clark, who died subsequent to hearing all the evidence but before a decision was made. The case was then submitted on the record to Judge Arthur W. Primm who denied revocation.
The evidence was conflicting, but Judge Primm found that there was creditable evidence of testamentary capacity and further found that there was insufficient evidence of the exercise of undue influence upon the decedent.
We have examined the record and conclude that there was substantial, competent evidence to establish that the testator did have testamentary capacity and was not under undue influence at the time of the execution of the will.
“The burden of overthrowing a will on the ground of lack of testamentary capacity is a heavy one and must be sustained by a preponderance of the evidence.” In re Kiggins Estate, Fla.1953, 67 So.2d 915.
“The right of a parent to disinherit his children seems to be firmly rooted in our law.” Flagler v. Flagler, Fla.1957, 94 So.2d 592.
Also see Marston v. Churchill, Fla.1939, 137 Fla. 154, 187 So. 762.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Est. of Mayer Weinstein. Gabrielle Nash v. Weinstein, 328 So. 2d 33 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976)…[*34] PER CURIAM. Affirmed on the authority of In re Estate of Balch, . Fla.App. 1968, 215 So. 2d 343; In re Estate of Carpenter, Fla.1971, 253 So. 2d 697; In re Estate of LaRose, Fla.App.1972, 262 So. 2d 690.…
Authorities Cited
- Flagler v. Flagler, 94 So. 2d 592 (Fla. 1957)
- In re Kiggins' Estate. Kiggins v. Peterson, 67 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1953)
- Marston v. Churchill, 137 Fla. 154 (Fla. 1939)