NICK P. SAGONIAS
v.
MARTHA WEEKS
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 a probate court's decision denying the admission of a purported will. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the denial.
No, the appellant failed to show that the lower courts misconceived the weight and probative force of the evidence. Therefore, the decree affirming the denial of probate stands.
“The controlling question for us to determine is whether or n'ot the appellant has made it clearly to appear that both the county judge and the circuit judge misconceived the weight and probative force of the evidence and that therefore the decree of affirmance should be reversed.”
This quote states the central legal question on appeal and the high burden the appellant must meet.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceNick P. Sagonias filed a petition for Letters Testamentary based on a purported will of Delma Lee Andrews. Martha Weeks filed a petition to deny proba…
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 Letters Testamentary cases and more on FLexlaw
Appeal is from a decree of the circuit court affirming an order of the county judge, in probate, as follows:
“This cause coming on to be heard upon the Petition for Letters Testamentary heretofore filed on the 8th day of August, A. D. 1939, by Nick P. Sagonias, the Petition of Martha Weeks praying that the court enter an order refusing and denying probate of a purported will purporting to have been made by Delma Lee Andrews, and praying for such further relief as to the court may seem meet, the court files and exhibits presented in said cause, the testimony of witnesses and other evidence produced before the court, and the court being other and fully advised in' the premises, it is, thereupon
“Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the Petition of Martha Weeks heretofore filed on the 26th day of August, A. D. 1939, be and the same is hereby granted; and
“It is further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the Petition for Letters Testamentary heretofore filed on the 8th day of August, A. D. 1939, by Nick P. Sagonias be and the same is hereby denied; and
“It is Further Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the said purported will of Delma Lee Andrews be and the same is hereby refused probate, and the same be and is hereby denied admission to the records as the Last Will and Testament of Delma Lee Andrews, deceased.”
The controlling question for us to determine is whether or n'ot the appellant has made it clearly to appear that both the county judge and the circuit judge misconceived the weight and probative force of the evidence and that there*756fore the decree of affirmance should be reversed. This burden has not been met.
There is substantial evidence reflected by the record to support the decree. So the same is affirmed.
So ordered.
Affirmed.
Terrell, C. J., and Buford and Thomas, J. J., concur.
Brown, J., concurs in opinion and judgment.
Justices Whitfield and Ci-iapman not participating as authorized by Section 4687, Compiled General Laws of 1927, and Rule 21-A of the Rules of this Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re the Est. of Letitia v. Graham, 156 Fla. 421 (Fla. 1945)…s interested in an estate, as against the others interested, allowance of fees for such attorneys was not authorized. The rule of decision controlling here is laid down in Watts, et al., v. Newport, 149 Fla. 181, 6 So. (2nd) 829; Sagonias v. Weeks, 143 Fla. 754, 197 So. 473. There was substantial competent evidence to support the discretionary finding of the Probate Judge and it has not been made to appear that he or the Circuit Judge in affirming him misconceived its weight and probative force. Therefor…