HATTIE MAJORANA, APPELLANT,
v.
T. JOSEPH CONSTANTINE, AS GUARDIAN OF ARTHUR R. LONG, INCOMPETENT, APPELLEE
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 District Court of Appeal reversed a judgment setting aside inter vivos gifts made by an incompetent person to his housekeeper on undue influence grounds. The court clarified that while a confidential relationship triggers a presumption of undue influence, the burden on the donee is only to come forward with reasonable explanation for her role, not to disprove undue influence entirely, consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Carpenter.
The burden placed upon a donee by the presumption of undue influence arising from a confidential relationship is only that of coming forward with reasonable explanation for her active role, not that of disproving undue influence; the burden of proof remains with the party upon whom it rested initially, applying principles from In re Estate of Carpenter.
[1] A confidential relationship between a donor and donee raises a presumption of undue influence, shifting the burden to the donee to demonstrate the good faith and voluntar…
[2] In cases involving a confidential relationship and a gift, the donee must provide a reasonable explanation for their active role in the donor's affairs, rather than dispr…
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“where a mutual confidential relation exists and a gift is made to one in whom the confidence is reposed, it is prima facie void because of such relation. The law presumes, in other words, when such relation exists, that the gift was obtained by undue influence or other improper means.”
Establishes the foundational presumption that gifts in confidential relationships are presumptively void due to undue influence
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceArthur R. Long made gifts to Hattie Majorana, his housekeeper. After Long was declared incompetent, his guardian brought suit to set aside the gifts. …
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 Burden Of Coming Forward With Evidence cases and more on FLexlaw
GRIMES, Judge.
Arthur R. Long made certain gifts to his housekeeper. After Mr. Long was declared incompetent, his guardian brought suit to set the gifts aside. The court found that Mr. Long and the defendant had occupied a confidential relationship and that the defendant had failed to rebut the presumption of undue influence thereby created. The court imposed a constructive trust upon property which had been purchased by the defendant with the proceeds of the gifts. The defendant does not contest the finding of a confidential relationship but contends that the court misconstrued the burden placed upon her by reason of the presumption of undue influence.
In Rich v. Hallman, 1932, 106 Fla. 348, 143 So. 292, the Supreme Court said:
“ . . . [Wjhere a mutual confidential relation exists and a gift is made to one in whom the confidence is reposed, it is prima facie void because of such relation. The law presumes, in other words, when such relation exists, that the gift was obtained by undue influence or other improper means. When persons occupy positions of trust and confidence as did the parties to this cause, they are held to a strict measure of candor in their dealings, and any transactions between them predicated on a grossly inadequate consideration will be viewed as suspicious. Equity raises a presumption against the validity of such dealings, and imposes on the vendee or the donee the burden of showing the good faith and voluntary conduct of the donor or the vendor as the case may be. 12 R.C.L. 972, and cases cited.”
This principle was reaffirmed in may subsequent cases. E. g., Adams v. Saunders, 1939, 139 Fla. 730, 191 So. 312; Lesperance v. Lesperance, Fla.App.3d, 1970, 233 So. 2d 859. However, in the case of In re Estate of Carpenter, Fla.1971, 253 So. 2d 697, our Supreme Court held that where a beneficiary of a will was shown to have been in a confidential relationship with the testator and actively participated in the execution of the will, the burden placed upon the beneficiary was only that of coming forward with the reasonable explanation for his active role in the decedent’s affairs rather than that of disproving the undue influence. The court held that, as in the case of other presumptions, the burden of proof remained with the party upon whom it rested in the first place.
While Carpenter was a will contest and the case sub judice involved a suit to set aside inter vivos gifts, the same principles would seem to apply. Our sister court so held in Pate v. Mellen, Fla.App.1st, 1972, 275 So. 2d 562.
The judge below was obviously following pre-Carpenter law when he stated in the final judgment:
“The Court finds the testimony and evidence presented by the Plaintiff establishes by clear and convincing evidence that a confidential relationship existed between Arthur R. Long and Hattie Majorana, the Defendant. The Court further finds that the Defendant failed to rebut the presumption that the transfers made to the Defendant were void because of such relation. That is, the Defendant-donee failed to establish that the transfers were made in good faith and voluntary conduct of the donor.”
Since the case was decided upon an erroneous conception of the burden raised by the presumption of undue influence, it is necessary for the case to be remanded for a determination according to the principles of Carpenter. In so doing, we do not purport to pass upon whether the defendant met the burden of coming forward with the evidence necessary to dispel the presumption.
Reversed and remanded.
BOARDMAN, A. C. J., and SCHEB, J., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (16 total)
-
Cripe v. Atl. First Nat'l Bank OF Daytona Beach, 422 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1982)…reater weight) of the evidence. Id. at 701-04. The rule of Carpenter is properly applied to inter vivos transfers. Williamson v. Kirby, 379 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Bryant v. Bryant, 379 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1979); Majorana v. Constantine, 318 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Pate v. Mellen, 275 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973). We believe that the agreement between Mrs. Hare and the Cripes, pertaining to the management of her properties and the supervision of her personal care, in exchange for the rem…
-
Lutgert v. Lutgert, 338 So. 2d 1111 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976)…41 Am.Jur.2d, Husband and Wife, § 314, at p. 225. . See Posner v. Posner, 257 So. 2d 530, 534 (Fla. 1972), and Del Vecchio v. Del Vecchio, note 1 supra. . Cf. In re Estate of Carpenter, 253 So. 2d 697 (Fla.1971). Also cf. Majorana v. Constantine, 318 So. 2d 185 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). .See In re Estate of Maag, 119 Neb. 237, 228 N.W. 537, 541 (1930). . See n. 3, supra. . See n. 5, supra. . See n. 5, supra. Also cf. Leonetti v. Boone, 74 So. 2d 551 (Fla.1954).…
-
Maudie Mae Jordan v. Essie Lee Noll, 423 So. 2d 368 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982)…revented. See Carpenter, supra, 253 So. 2d at 704. REVERSED. McCORD, J., concurs. SHAW, J., dissenting. . Carpenter involved the execution of a will, but later cases have applied the same principles to inter vivos gifts. Majorana v. Constantine, 318 So. 2d 185 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975); Pate v. Mellen, 275 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1973) (on rehearing); Williamson v. Kirby, 379 So. 2d 693 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980); Bryant v. Bryant, 379 So. 2d 382 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). . We are aware of the recent Florida Supreme Court…
Previewing 3 of 16 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- In re Est. of Coketine Bray Carpenter v. Carpenter, 253 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1971)
- Rich v. Isabella Hallman, 106 Fla. 348 (Fla. 1932)
- Adams v. Saunders, 139 Fla. 730 (Fla. 1939)
- Lennie Elizabeth Pate v. Mellen, 275 So. 2d 562 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972)
- Lesperance v. Lesperance, 233 So. 2d 859 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970)