IN RE ESTATE OF MARY JO FANELLI, DECEASED. MARY ANN BONGIORNO, APPELLANT,
v.
MARY VIRGINIA FANELLI, 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.
Mary Ann Bongiorno appeals the revocation of her mother-in-law's will on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity. The trial court submitted the case to a jury despite statutory language indicating the judge should decide revocation matters, but the appellate court affirmed, finding any procedural error harmless since the judge heard all evidence and could have rejected the jury verdict.
While the statute contemplated judicial decision on revocation of probate, the trial court had discretion to use an advisory jury to resolve disputed factual issues. Any error in submitting the case to a jury was harmless because the judge heard all evidence, could have rejected the jury verdict, and there is no showing the result would have been different had the judge decided the case alone.
[1] A probate judge has discretion to submit factual issues to an advisory jury in a will revocation proceeding.
[2] Under former Florida law, a party was not entitled to a jury trial as a matter of right in probate proceedings.
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“the circuit judge shall, upon the issues made and the proof adduced, confirm or revoke the probate according to the law and justice of the case”
The statutory language from § 732.30(2) that appellant relied on, stating the judge (not jury) shall decide revocation
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceMary Jo Fanelli executed a will on February 8, 1973, and died a few hours later by suicide due to acute nembutal intoxication. The will was admitted t…
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 Advisory Jury cases and more on FLexlaw
HOBSON, Acting Chief Judge.
Mary Ann Bongiorno, the sole beneficiary under the will of Mary Jo Fanelli, appeals a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict finding that testatrix did not have testamentary capacity at the time she executed her will. The circuit court, as a court of probate, declared the purported will to be null and void and of no force and effect and ordered that it be set aside.
The record reflects that the will was executed on February 8, 1973, and that testatrix died a few hours later by suicide due to acute nembutal intoxication. On February 14, 1973, the will was admitted to probate. On September 25, 1973, testatrix’s mother, Mary Virginia Fanelli, filed a petition for revocation of probate of the will and requested trial by jury. Appellant Bongiorno filed a motion to strike the request, and the court denied this motion, finding that permitting a jury trial in this case would be discretionary.
Appellant contends that the lower court committed reversible error in submitting the case to a jury. She argues that there is no provision in the constitution or statutes of Florida which requires a jury trial in probate matters and, in fact, § 732.30(2) F.S. 1973 [which was in effect at the time of trial] mandates that the judge shall decide whether or not to revoke probate. Former subsection 732.30(2) provided:
732.30 Revocation of Probate
s}c # sfc sf: sf: *
(2) Citation to appear and defend shall be served upon the personal representative; and the circuit judge shall, upon the issues made and the proof adduced, confirm or revoke the probate according to the law and justice of the case. (Emphasis added)
Like probate matters, equity eases were not subject to jury trials at common law. The courts of Florida have held, however, •that the submission of a factual question in an equity case to a jury is in the discretion of the court. Berg v. New York Life Insurance Company, Fla.1956, 88 So. 2d 915; Vivian Greene, Inc. v. Levine, Fla.App.3d 1973, 287 So. 2d 135. Also, in revocation of probation proceedings and juvenile delinquency proceedings the courts have said that a trial judge would have authority to use an advisory jury to determine a disputed issue of fact, although not required to do so. Singletary v. State, Fla.App.4th 1974, 290 So. 2d 116; McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971, 403 U.S. 528, 91 S.Ct. 1976, 29 L.Ed.2d 647.
While a party was not entitled as a matter of right to a jury trial in probate proceedings under the former probate laws, there was nothing to prevent a probate judge from using an advisory jury to aid him in resolving the issues. Smith and Armistead v. Croom, Fla.1857, 7 Fla. 180.
In the instant case the judge heard all the testimony and evidence adduced at the trial, and could have rejected the advisory jury verdict. See Gulf Life Insurance Company v. Urquiga, Fla.App.2d 1971, 251 So. 2d 904. Instead, the judge accepted the finding of the jury and upon the issues made and the proof adduced, revoked the probate of the will in compliance with § 732.30(2) F.S.1973.
The record does not disclose that the jury verdict was contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence, and no such claim has been made by appellant. There is no argument offered to show that the conclusion would have been otherwise if the cause had been tried by the judge without a jury. Under these circumstances it could not be effectively contended that appellant has suffered injury by having the case tried by jury. The error, if any, was harmless. Shores v. Murphy, Fla.1966, 88 So. 2d 294.
We have considered appellant’s remaining point on appeal and find it to be without merit.
The judgment appealed is AFFIRMED.
BOARDMAN and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Carola D. Allen v. In re The Est. of Ellen C. Dutton, 394 So. 2d 132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)…find no error in the trial court’s decision to strike appellant’s request for a jury trial of the undue influence issue. Probate matters were never submitted to jury trials at common law, or under the prior probate law of Florida. Estate of Fanelli, 336 So. 2d 631 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); In Re Duval’s Estate, 174 So. 2d 580 (Fla.2d DCA 1965). The “new” Florida probate code which became effective January 1, 1976 makes no express change concerning the availability of jury trials. Florida Rule of Probate & Guardians…1 / 2
-
Luisa Rodriguez v. Travelers Ins. Co., 367 So. 2d 687 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)…s situation. We disagree, however, with the statements in both the Kilby and Catches cases, supra, that fees may be awarded under the statute only “when the insurer refuses or fails to negotiate in good faith.” Reliance Ins. Co. v. Kilby, supra, at 336 So. 2d 631; Catches v. Government Employees Ins. Co., supra, at 318 So. 2d 553.7 In our view, these statements are completely contrary to an unbroken line of Florida cases which hold that fees must be awarded when the statutory prerequisites are met, regardles…1 / 2
-
Vista Ctr. Venture v. Unlike Anything, Inc., 603 So. 2d 576 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…of right before a jury such as in probate or equity cases may be tried at the discretion of the trial court before an advisory jury. In Re Wartels’ Estate, 338 So. 2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA1976) affirmed, 357 So. 2d 708 (Fla.1978); In Re Fanelli’s Estate, 336 So. 2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA1976); Gulf Life Insurance Company v. Urquiaga, 251 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA1971). Where the parties have effectively waived their right to a common law jury trial there is no right to such a jury trial, but the trial court may in its dis…
Authorities Cited
- McKEIVER v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528 (U.S. 1971)
- Singletary v. State, 290 So. 2d 116 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)
- Smith and Armistead v. Croom, 7 Fla. 180 (Fla. 1857)
- Berg v. NEW York Life Ins. Co., 88 So. 2d 915 (Fla. 1956)
- Shores v. Ida Murphy and her husband, 88 So. 2d 294 (Fla. 1956)
- Gulf Life Ins. Co. v. Urquiaga, 251 So. 2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA 1971)
- Vivian Greene, Inc. v. Levine, 287 So. 2d 135 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973)