… and the winner is Will Contest.

It is not uncommon for a couple to welcome a child into their home and treat it as a family member without ever legally adopting the child. When the situation is brought to the court’s attention, usually through some probate proceedings, courts sometimes employ the doctrine of “virtual adoption.” This doctrine allows the child or another party the same rights the party would have had if a legal adoption had taken place. Read the rest of this entry

A no-contest clause, also called an in terrorem clause, is a topic I have discussed previously in my blog. Readers may remember that an in terrorem clause is a written sentence in a testamentary instrument (will or trust) that is designed to threaten someone, into refraining from action, or ceasing to act. The phrase is typically used to refer to a clause in a will or trust that threatens to disinherit a beneficiary if that beneficiary challenges the terms of the will or trust.

The Uniform Probate Code, §2-517 allows for no contest clauses so long as the person challenging the will doesn’t have probable cause to do so. Some states, like Ohio, allow for “living probate” and “ante mortem” probate, which are statutory provisions which authorize testators to institute an adversary proceeding during their life to declare the validity of the will, in order to avoid later will contests.

Florida does not follow the Uniform Probate Code and does not recognize the enforceablility of in terrorem clauses in wills or in trusts. The Florida Probate Code, at section 732.517 provides that “A provision in a will purporting to penalize any interested person for contesting the will or instituting other proceedings relating to the estate is unenforceable.” Read the rest of this entry

Can disinherited heirs still take inheritance by intestacy?Sometimes a testator leaves a last will that expresses his or her intent to disinherit an heir. These wills are described under the common law, and some states’ statutes, as “negative wills.” Sometimes, the law allows a relative or heir disinherited under the negative will to nevertheless share in property that the testator failed to devised to another and as to which he or she died intestate. See In re Levy’s Estate, 196 So.2d 225 (Fla 3d DCA 1967).

The Uniform Probate Code addresses the issue and provides that a decedent through a last will and testament may expressly exclude or limit the right of an individual or class to succeed to property of the decedent passing by intestate succession, and if that individual or a member of that class survives the decedent, the share of the decedent’s intestate estate to which that individual or class would have succeeded passes as if that individual or each member of that class had disclaimed his or her intestate share. Uniform Probate Code §2-101(b). Stated more plainly, if you really want to exclude a person and every descendent, relative and heir of that excluded person, you need to make it crystal clear in the last will and testament. Read the rest of this entry

Lawyers and probate courts are frequently asked by relatives of a deceased to consider evidence well beyond the four corners of a last will in determining the “true” donative intent of the testator. However, courts, at least in Florida, are generally bound by the language of a person’s last will and testament unless there is some ambiguity warranting the court’s examination of extrinsic evidence.

There are two types of ambiguities in the typical last will and testament construction cases:

A last will is “patently ambiguous” if it is ambiguous on its face. Patent ambiguities usually result in the probate courts finding that there is no valid will in effect and no extrinsic evidence is permitted. Some courts have held that where there is a patent ambiguity as to the testator’s intent, the probate court may consider extrinsic evidence. Remember extrinsic is evidence that is not within the document (in this case the Last Will) but instead comes from outside or external sources.

A “latent ambiguity” arises when it is not clear how to apply certain words of a last will to a specific gift. One court has described a latent ambiguity as arising when the words of the will are applied to the subject of devise or bequest, and those words apply to and fit without ambiguity indifferently to each of several things or persons. Kernkamp v. Bolthouse, 714 So.2d 655 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998). Read the rest of this entry

Fifth District Court of Appeals Shed’s Light on the meaning of the requirement that witnesses must sign in the testator’s presence.

A frequent issue in contests involving the validity of instruments, whether a last will and testament, trust or trust amendment, or even a prenuptial agreement, is whether the instrument was properly executed or signed. Section 733.502 of the Florida Probate Code provides that, among other things, it is essential to the validity of a last will for the witnesses to sign in the testator’s and each other’s presence. An improperly attested, signed or executed last will cannot be admitted to probate. Read the rest of this entry

Alabama, Ohio, and 13 Other States Need to Follow Florida’s Lead

Many decedents in a variety of jurisdictions place no contest provisions in their wills in order to prevent their family members from fighting over the inheritance following death. These clauses, sometimes referred to as in terrorem clauses are defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as ‘[a] provision designed to threaten one into action or inaction; esp., a testamentary provision that threatens to dispossess any beneficiary who challenges the terms of the will.’

For example, I have seen the clauses similar to this in many wills in an effort to avoid will contests:

“If any beneficiary under this will in any manner, directly or indirectly, contests or challenges this will or any of its provisions, any share or interest in my estate given to that contesting beneficiary under this will is revoked and shall be disposed of in the same manner provided herein as if that contesting beneficiary has predeceased me without issue.” Read the rest of this entry

Previous blog posts have discussed the fundamentals of will contests in Florida. These actions occur when a will is offered for probate (See Post dated October 28, 2008 What is the Definition of Probate) which is always after the testator has died. One of the most common grounds for a person seeking to invalidate a will offered for probate is that the will was executed at a time when the testator (the person signing the will) lacked testamentary capacity. The legal standard for testamentary capacity is that the testator knew the nature and extent of his or her property, the natural objects of his or her bounty (property) and the contents of his or her estate plan. See, In re Estate of Tolin, 622 So.2d 988, 990 (Fla. 1993).

Since the person signing the will isn’t alive to testify or be examined in order to determine testamentary capacity, the court must rely on other evidence, such as: observations of the testator’s behavior reported by neighbors and friends; medical evidence during the time of the will signing and the content of the will itself, just to name a few. My experience as a probate litigator is that there is invariably a contest of competing evidence of the testator’s capacity-for example, there is usually expert evidence that conflicts with non-expert evidence given by those who knew the testator. Read the rest of this entry

In Re:  Estate of Carpenter – the presumption of undue influence in Florida and the Florida Probate Code.

I have written at great length of the various factors I assess when determining whether to accept a case for prosecution. I now turn my attention to the Florida decisional case law from the Florida Supreme Court in the seminal case of In re Estate of Carpenter, 253 So.2d 697 (Fla. 1971) its practical application, and the Florida legislature’s response through enactment of section 733.107 of the Florida Probate Code which today supersedes Carpenter.

When the validity of a will or trust is challenged based upon the theory of undue influence, the challenger must prove the instrument at issue (will or trust document) resulted from the exercise of undue influence on the mind of the person executing the will or trust instrument. The Carpenter decision from the Florida Supreme Court sets forth the basic principal of law that the challenger’s initial burden can be met by proof of sufficient facts to raise a presumption of undue influence. Simply stated, a presumption of undue influence arises upon a showing that a party who (1) occupied a confidential relationship with the testator, (2) was a substantial beneficiary under the will, and (3) was active in procuring the instrument. Read the rest of this entry

All too often I am asked to investigate and ultimately prosecute will contests which involve attorneys playing an active role, not only in the procurement of the will, but in having themselves or their relatives named as beneficiaries under the will. The Florida Supreme Court has adopted a portion of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Responsibility, and in particular, the prohibition against lawyers playing a role in the drafting and execution of a will or trust where they are named as a beneficiary.

Rule 4-1.8. Conflict of Interest; Prohibited and Other Transactions

(c) Gifts to Lawyer or Lawyer’s Family. A lawyer shall not solicit any substantial gift from a client, including a testamentary gift, or prepare on behalf of a client an instrument giving the lawyer or a person related to the lawyer any substantial gift unless the lawyer or other recipient of the gift is related to the client. For purposes of this subdivision, related persons include a spouse, child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, or other relative with whom the lawyer or the client maintains a close, familial relationship.

This code provision was relied on in disciplinary proceedings against a lawyer in The Florida Bar vs. Anderson, 638 So.2d 29 (Fla. 1994). In October 1988, Anderson, a probate lawyer, undertook the representation of Mary Sisler. Between that time and Sisler’s death two years later, he prepared nine testamentary instruments, six of which named him or his wife as beneficiaries of Sisler’s estate. The Court found his conduct to be unprofessional even though Anderson did not intend that either he or his wife benefit from the bequests and even though he received no real benefit from any instrument he drafted for Sisler. The Court found, however, that Anderson was attempting, inartfully, to effectuate Sisler’s intent to shield the bequests from the creditors of the Palm Beach Festival, her intended beneficiary.

The Anderson decision and the Rule of Professional Responsibility upon which it is predicated, underscores the deep-rooted policy in Florida that a lawyer who drafts a will in which the attorney or a member of his family is a beneficiary raises the issue of undue influence that taints the entire will and may destroy the validity of other bequests as well. Florida law will not tolerate this conduct as it frustrates the intentions of a client who has entrusted the attorney with the responsibility of seeing that the estate is distributed according to the client’s wishes. Further, in the cases I have handled, I invariably find that the attorney’s credibility as a witness on testamentary capacity is impaired by the attorney’s personal interest in the outcome.

Do I Have a Case? (Part Four)

As I have indicated in prior posts, there are certain categories of evidence that I look for in order to prove undue influence, which has been defined by Florida courts as conduct amounting to overpersuasion, duress, force, coercion, or artful or fraudulent contrivances to such a degree that the free agency and will power of the testator is destroyed. In re Carpenter’s Estate, 253 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1971).

In Florida, the legislature has created a presumption of undue influence.  What does this mean? Read the rest of this entry