Florida Probate & Trust Litigation Blog : Florida Probate Litigation, Will Contest Lawyer & Attorney : Juan C. Antúnez : Serving Miami, Jacksonville, Tampa Saint Petersburg, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale

As reported here, Sen. Max Baucus has introduced a bill in the Senate that would make the 2009 estate tax level permanent and reunify the estate and gift taxes. Nothing surprising here, but it's worth noting that this bill also allows portability of the exemption for spouses. This is a big deal. By now I think the emerging consensus is that "portability" is going to be a part of the new estate-tax landscape, which I previously wrote about here.

For more detail on the Baucus bill, click here for North Carolina estate planning attorney Greg Herman-Giddens' comments on his North Carolina Estate Planning Blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Levine v. Levine, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 482260 (Fla. 5th DCA Feb 27, 2009)

Whether or not an adult is in fact legally "incapacitated" is often the crux of the case in contested guardianship proceedings. The fact finders that are supposed to answer that question are the members of the examining committee appointed by the probate judge pursuant to F.S. § 744.331.

If your client disagrees with the committee's findings, you won't get your day in court by simply demanding an evidentiary hearing. Under the peculiar procedural rules governing guardianship proceedings, you first have to file a motion to strike the committee's report then have your evidentiary hearing. Make sense? I don't think so, but according to the 5th DCA, that's the law. Here's why:

Evidentiary Hearing? Wrong Answer:

Dr. Levine contends that the language of [F.S. § 744.331(4)] notwithstanding, he should have the right to an evidentiary hearing to challenge the opinions of the examining committee members, either individually or collectively. We disagree, as the language of the statute is clear and unambiguous. Once a majority of the examining committee concluded that Mr. Levine was not incapacitated, the trial court was correct in dismissing the petition to determine incapacity and the petition for the appointment of a guardian. See Mathes v. Huelsman, 743 So.2d 626, 627 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999) (holding once examining committee concluded that alleged incapacitated person had full capacity, trial court was required to dismiss petition to determine incapacity); see also In re Keene, 343 So.2d 916 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977).

Motion to Strike? Right Answer:

FN1. Ms. Stimmel contends that if the examining committee concludes that the alleged incapacitated person is not incapacitated, there is no remedy available to the other interested parties involved in the proceeding even if the report is materially deficient. We disagree. We do not believe that the court must rely on a report from the examining committee which is materially deficient. However, rather than conducting an evidentiary hearing to test the examining committee's report, an action that would violate [F.S. § 744.331(4)], a more appropriate remedy would be for the court, or any interested party, to move to strike the report. If such a motion is granted, the court could then order a re-examination by the existing committee (or committee member) or appoint a new committee (or committee member) and order a re-examination.

Bonus Point: Who Pays the Committee's Fees?

If the examining committee says the person being examined is OK, that may be good news for the potential ward, but bad news for the examining committee. Why? Because now there's no guardianship "estate" from which to pay their fees. So who pays? The statute doesn't cover that contingency (oops!), a "gap" in the law I first wrote about here. In this case the probate judge ordered the petitioner to pay: "wrong answer" says the 5th DCA:

The trial court also ordered Dr. Levine to pay the examining committee's fees. Ms. Stimmel concedes error. While section 744.331(7)(a) allows the trial court to award members of the examining committee reasonable fees, subparagraph (c) of that section provides that the cost and attorney's fees of a dismissed petition are to be assessed against the petitioner only if the court finds the petition to have been filed in bad faith. The court made no such finding here. We recognize that the statute has a gap in determining responsibility for payment of the examining committee fees when a good faith petition is denied or dismissed. See Ehrlich v. Severson, 985 So.2d 639, 640 n. 1 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008). As did the Ehrlich court, we urge the Legislature to specify who pays the examining committee fees in this circumstance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

A defining characteristic of probate litigation is that your cases are decided by judges, no jury trials here. If your judge is prepared and understands the facts and law of your case, all is well. But when your judge is not prepared, or simply doesn't "get" it, he's what Denver, Colorado litigator Peter Bornstein refers to as a "cold" judge in Persuading a Cold Judge, an excellent article just published in the ABA's Litigation magazine. Here's how Bornstein frames the issue:

Having your case decided by another human being who may rule against your client out of ignorance is to stare into the abyss. Of all the reasons to tell your client why his or her case was lost, the least satisfying and most embarrassing is having to say, “The judge never understood what it was about.” Every trial lawyer has candidly said, “I won cases I should have lost and lost cases I should have won.” The reason for this truism is often the “cold” judge—the judge who hears and rules without knowledge, understanding, depth, or concern. So, what do you do when you stand before a cold judge? Don’t panic. Keep your cool. Do your best. And remember that even when your judge is prepared, scholarly, and mindful of her reputation, you still know more about your case than anyone else in the courtroom. 

Probate courts are especially prone to cold judging. Not because our probate judges don't want to do the right thing (I assume they all do), but because Florida's state court system is so starved for resources they simply don't have the luxury of preparation. Also, as a general rule, although the stakes in dollar terms may be smaller, the issues involved in contested probate proceedings can be just as complicated and difficult as the issues at play in large complex commercial cases. To make matters worse, clients are often unwilling or unable to pay for the same level of preparation.

So what's to be done? One option is to "privatize" contested probate proceedings to the extent possible by tapping into one of the many alternative-dispute-resolution tools available under Florida law [click here]. If that doesn't work, then Bornstein delivers solid advice - especially useful for probate litigators - on how to warm up even the frostiest probate judge:

Begin at the beginning. In every court appearance, there are six basic queries to answer for a judge: [1] Who are you? [2] Who is with you, and whom are you representing? [3] What is the controversy, in one sentence? [4] Why are you here today? [5] What outcome or relief do you want? [6] Why should you get it? This last query is most often forgotten. Indeed, these six essential queries are a good beginning even when you are dealing with a warm judge. Consider putting them on a PowerPoint slide, a handout in the form of an “executive summary,” or a demonstrative exhibit to project through Elmo or other presentation technology.

A judge in a suburban district told me that the one thing I could do to assist his judging was to begin succinctly by telling him what was before the court, remind him of the nature of the case, and tell him what action I wanted the court to take and why I thought I had the right to that action. Once I did this for him, he would be ready to listen to my argument. This particular judge told me that he has so many cases that he can’t read the motions before the hearing, and if he has read them, it was so long ago that he couldn’t recall what he’d read. He has no legal assistant to write memos for him; he does his own legal research, and if you cited more than 10 cases for him to read, he couldn’t do it. He likes being a judge and wants to do the best job he can, but he is forced to come into hearings and trials cold. So, help him be the good judge he wants to be and the quality of his decisions will be your reward.

Sounds like good advice to me.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

The Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (UAGPPJA) addresses a problem that needs fixing in Florida: interstate jurisdiction controversies involving adult guardianship proceedings. As I've written before, due to our highly mobile popluation (especially with respect to retiring seniors) inter-state forum shopping in contested guardianship proceedings is a growing problem [click here]. So it's not surprising these cases are already bubbling up through our appellate court system [click here].

The UAGPPJA addresses the forum shopping problem by creating a reliable process for determining with certainty which state will have jurisdiction to appoint a guardian or conservator if there is a conflict among one or more states. The UAGPPJA's legislative status in Florida is unclear, although it is getting some attention in Tallahassee. Legislation adopting the uniform act in Florida was introduced in January 2009 -  then withdrawn the next month (HB 305). Stay tuned for more.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

Provost v. Justin, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 484633 (Fla. 2d DCA Feb 27, 2009)

When Florida adopted its version of the Uniform Trust Code in 2007 [click here], it modernized and sometimes dramatically changed our prior body of trust law. One of the fundamental changes was a reversal of the presumption regarding revocability of trusts: the presumption used to be a trust is NOT revocable; F.S. 736.0602(1) now provides that trusts are revocable by default. My guess is that this change in the law may have been one of the causes for the linked-to case, although less-than-clear drafting was probably the primary culprit. Here's how the leading expert on our new trust code, Prof. Powell, explained the importance of clear drafting in this Fl. Bar Journal article explaining the new code:

Methods of Amending or Revoking Trusts
Along with stating that it is revocable, a well-drafted revocable trust instrument will specify the method that is to be used to accomplish a revocation or amendment. If the trust instrument does this, the provision in the instrument is exclusive in the sense that the trust can be revoked or amended only by substantially complying with the method stated in the instrument. If the instrument does not specify a method, any clear and convincing manifestation of the settlor’s intent to revoke is sufficient, including a provision in the settlor’s later will or codicil expressly revoking the trust or specifically devising property that would otherwise pass according to the trust terms.[FN 57]

[FN 57] See generally §736.0602(3)(b). The “substantial compliance” test in this section may be more lenient than existing Florida law, which appears to require strict compliance. See Euart v. Yoakley, 456 So. 2d 1327 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1984).

In the linked-to opinion the joint revocable trust agreement contained language limiting the right of amendment to the settlors "during their lives." After one of them died, the survivor attempted to amend their joint trust agreement in a way that would basically disinherit their three children and leave most of the estate to the widow's caregiver. This was a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Here's how the 2d DCA explained its rationale for rejecting the purported trust-agreement amendment and reversing the trial court's judgment:

“The polestar of trust interpretation is the settlors' intent.” L'Argent v. Barnett Bank, N.A., 730 So.2d 395, 397 (Fla. 2d DCA 1999). “In determining the settlors' intent, the court should not ‘resort to isolated words and phrases'; instead, the court should construe ‘the instrument as a whole,’ taking into account the general dispositional scheme.” Roberts v. Sarros, 920 So.2d 193, 195 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (citations omitted). The parties agree that these principles apply to the case at hand and rely on both L'Argent and Roberts in disputing the interpretation this court should give to the Trust.

As in L'Argent, the Trust contains language that limits the right of amendment to the grantors “during their lives.” See 730 So.2d at 397. Based on our review of the entire Trust document, we conclude that both grantors needed to execute any amendment to the Trust. Because Aurele Provost did not execute the amendment prepared by Geraldine Provost, the amendment is ineffective. Accordingly, we reverse the summary judgment in favor of Appellees Elizabeth Justin and Sharon Harsch and remand for the trial court to enter summary judgment in favor of Appellants Levis Provost, Marquis Provost, and Constance Monty.

By the way, we should expect to see more and more joint revocable trusts as part of our practice. Especially if spousal portability of estate-tax exemptions is folded into any new version of the estate tax (and I think it will, click here). For a solid primer on joint revocable trusts see Joint Trusts in Separate Property States by frequent lecturer and Chicago estate planning attorney Louis Harrison.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

When eccentric millionaire Wilson (Chuck) Lucom died in 2006 at 88, he left as much as $50 million in his will for poor children's charities in Panama. It's reportedly the largest private gift ever made in that country. Unfortunately, Panama’s poor may never see a dime of Lucom’s estate, which has been locked in litigation in both Panama and Florida since his death. Here’s how this November 2007 piece in Time summed up the case:

Lucom's widow Hilda, 83, the frail matriarch of Panama's prominent Arias family (a clan that has produced two of Panama's Presidents), with the support of her children is battling to get the will declared invalid. They say the will's U.S. executor, Florida tax attorney Richard Lehman, concocted the charity donation so he could split the money with other Lucom cronies. Hilda's Panamanian lawyer, Hector Infante, known for political connections and tough tactics, has pressed criminal charges against Lehman--even accusing him of having euthanized Lucom. (That charge was dismissed.) Lehman has sued Hilda and Infante for defamation, but he no longer travels to Panama, fearing he would be arrested. Still, he says, "I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror if I gave up this case." It is now in Panama's Supreme Court, and a ruling could take months, if not years.

Lehman hasn’t been shy about going on the offensive: he’s got his own website [click here], and does television interviews and gives press conferences touting his efforts on behalf of Panama's poor [click here]. Which makes the latest twist in this case all the more shocking.

On March 5, 2009 a Florida probate judge entered this order pulling no punches in its scathing indictment of Lehman’s actions since being appointed Florida ancillary personal representative (APR) of this estate on July 19, 2006. Referred to as an “intermeddling volunteer,” Lehman is being ordered to pay the estate damages in excess of $1.5 million as well as the attorneys fees incurred by Lucom’s widow and other beneficiaries in their fight against him here in Florida. Here’s an excerpt from the linked-to order:

On July 19,2006, Lehman was not qualified to act as APR of the Florida ancillary estate under the requirements of Fla.Stat. 734.102. On July 19, 2006, he was not the foreign personal representative of the Panama domiciliary estate of Decedent. Lehman testified he had no knowledge of Hilda P. Lucom's Panama appeal being filed, or its effect upon his authority in the domiciliary estate, at the time he petitioned for appointment as APR in Florida. That testimony is not credible. However, Lehman 's good faith, or lack thereof, is irrelevant: as of the date he requested and received Letters of Administration to act as APR, he was not entitled to have those Letters issued. His appointment as APR in Florida is void ab initio. Thus, all actions taken by Lehman in the Florida ancillary estate were those of an intermeddling volunteer. His actions were not protected by Florida law, or excused by the Exculpatory Clause in Decedent's will. Lehman is liable to the Estate for all monies received by him improperly and for all damages to the Estate caused by Mr. Lehman under Fla. Stat. 733.309.

And it ain't over yet. According to this Palm Beach Post article Lehman disputed Phillips' findings vowing to appeal (surprise, surprise), saying "I never put a dollar in my pocket and I spent $1 million of my own money defending the estate."

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Griem v. Becker, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 454517 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb 25, 2009)

My assumption regarding "bearer" shares in offshore companies is that they're sold to people who are up to no good (probably trying to cheat on their taxes), and I'm not the only one who feels that way [click here]. From an asset protection standpoint, the main advantage of bearer shares is the supposed ability to quickly and anonymously transfer ownership of your shares. That may be well and good while you're alive, but if you drop dead, figuring out who owns your shares won't be easy, as the litigants in this case found out.

At the probate court level the judge bought the argument that when it comes to bearer shares in a BVI company, possession = ownership, period, end of story. Which is a fair assumption, and what I would have guessed before reading the linked-to opinion. Not so, says the 3d DCA, in an opinion that's a road map for anyone who ever has to deal with this issue in the future. The two big take-away points from this case are:

1. Florida law does NOT control the ownership issue:

The appellee relies on section 673.2011(1), Florida Statutes (2005), which states, “[I]f an instrument is payable to bearer, it may be negotiated by transfer of possession alone.” . . . This reliance, however, is misplaced. Under the UCC, “instruments” are unconditional promises or orders to pay a fixed amount of money and are addressed in Article 3 (chapter 673 of the Florida Statutes), as distinguished from “securities,” addressed in Article 8 (chapter 678 of the Florida Statutes). The shares in Conti-Tech are securities. Under section [678.1101], the local law of the issuer's jurisdiction, BVI, governs claims regarding transfer of the Conti-Tech shares.

2. Determining ownership of bearer shares is a fact-intensive exercise:

On appeal the 3d DCA reversed the probate court's summary judgment order expressly rejecting the argument that possession is "ten tenths of the law" when it comes to figuring out who owns bearer shares. Ownership of bearer shares turns out to be way more fact intensive than most of us would have guessed.

Simply stated, the mere possession of these BVI share certificates does not immunize the appellee from investigation or claim by the personal representative. The appellee's affidavit raises more questions than it answers: since Conti-Tech had a U.S. securities account, did it file U.S. income tax returns in 2003, 2004, and 2005, potentially providing evidence linking the company to its shareholder? If Conti-Tech's shareholder received any part of its income, would that not have been disclosed on his or her U.S. income tax return? FN6 Did Conti-Tech's memorandum authorize bearer shares? Wouldn't Merrill Lynch, Miami, have required a copy of the memorandum as part of the account-opening documentation for Conti-Tech's securities account? Wouldn't Conti-Tech's registered agent and the depositary custodians have records revealing the beneficial holders and transfers? How could Becker have obtained her appointment as director effective over seven months after Mr. Griem's death unless she delivered documentary evidence of her ownership of the shares to the registered agent of Conti-Tech before that? Does the registered agent have other certificates evidencing transfers of ownership or custodians in effect before Mr. Griem's death?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Price v. Abate, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 559908 (Fla. 5th DCA Mar 06, 2009)

In the linked-to case the 5th DCA broke new ground. The parties were litigating what the word "presence" means for purposes of witnessing a will under F.S. 732.502(1)(c):

Witnesses' signatures.--The attesting witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator and in the presence of each other.

Apparently no one's asked a Florida appellate court to rule on this issue before.

Based on the following testimony, the probate court concluded that even though the witnesses were in the same room as the testator when he signed the purported will, they weren't in his "presence," thus warranting summary judgment rejecting the will:

In seeking summary judgment, Flanigan's heirs asserted that Price could not sustain her burden of proving that Flanigan's purported lost will had been properly attested to. To support their claim, the heirs cited to the deposition testimony of the only living witnesses to the execution of Flanigan's purported lost will, bank employees Dalila Ramos and Donna Fazio.

Ramos testified that Flanigan asked her to notarize a hand-written piece of paper which stated “that he was leaving basically everything that he owned to Fran Price.” Ramos testified that she did not remember if Flanigan signed the paper in her presence or not. Ramos further testified that after she notarized the document she called over a teller named Donna Fazio to act as a witness. Critical to this appeal, she further testified:

Q. Now, when you signed it, was Donna Fazio present?

A. No.

* * *

Q. And Donna Fazio did not see you sign the document; is that correct?
A. That is correct.

Donna Fazio's deposition testimony was consistent with the testimony submitted by Ramos. In that regard, Fazio testified that Ramos summoned her by using a phone intercom, and that Ramos asked her to witness a document:

Q. You say by the time you got there, everything was already signed?

A. Yes, sir.

Q. Now, did you see anybody sign?

A. No.

Q. Were you present when anybody signed?

A. No.

The trial court concluded that entry of summary judgment in favor of the heirs and against Price was warranted because the uncontradicted record evidence demonstrated that Ramos and Fazio did not sign in the presence of each other because Fazio was not in the presence of Ramos when Ramos signed the document.

On appeal the 5th DCA upheld the probate court's ruling based on the following rationale:

Price challenges this ruling, conceding that there are no cases in Florida which expressly define the term “in the presence of each other” for purposes of the statute but claiming that, given the physical proximity of the two witnesses, the determination of this issue involves genuine issues of material fact which should be determined by the trier of fact after hearing the actual testimony of the witnesses. We disagree.

The decision issued by our Supreme Court in State v. Werner, 609 So.2d 585 (Fla.1992), supports the trial court's ruling. In that case, the Court was asked to define the word “presence” for purposes of the lewd and lascivious act statute, section 800.04(3) of the Florida Statutes, which provides that any person who knowingly commits any lewd or lascivious act “in the presence of” any child under the age of 16 years without committing the crime of sexual battery is guilty of a felony of the second degree. The State argued that the plain and ordinary meaning of “presence” is “the part of space within one's immediate vicinity.” Upon review, the Court rejected the State's argument and concluded that, while the child need not be able to articulate or even comprehend what the offender is doing, the child must see or sense that a lewd or lascivious act is taking place for a violation to occur.

Application of this reasoning to the instant case supports the trial court's conclusion that the mere fact that Ramos and Fazio were in the vicinity of one another at the time Ramos signed Flanigan's will was insufficient to satisfy the statutory requirement that Ramos sign the will in Fazio's presence. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's ruling.

I think the 5th DCA got this one right, and I'm sure most Florida probate lawyers would agree with me. Being "present" as a witness when someone's signing his will means more than being in the same room at the same time, the witness has to see the person sign his will, and understand in a general sense what the heck is going on. I think it's also important to note that in a roundabout way the 1st DCA came to a similar conclusion in 2005 with respect to the minimum requirements for witnessing a will [click here], although that opinion wasn't nearly as thoughtful and well-articulated as this one.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

Edelstein v. Beagell, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 500913 (Fla. 1st DCA Feb 27, 2009)

Not all probate orders are created equal. Some are appealable, and some aren't. The controlling rule is broadly stated in Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(2) as follows:

(a) Applicability. This rule applies to those proceedings that . . . (2) seek review of orders entered in probate and guardianship matters that finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person as defined in the Florida Probate Code;

The rule seems simple, but figuring out which orders "finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person" is easier said than done. In the linked-to case the appellant guessed wrong and had her appeal dismissed by the 1st DCA. Here's how the court explained its ruling:

Having considered the appellant's response to this Court's order of December 11, 2008, we dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The order on appeal, entitled “Final Order on Petition for Determination of Beneficiaries,” denied the petition below without making any final determination as to the beneficiaries of the estate. Therefore, the order on appeal did not “finally determine a right or obligation of an interested person,” so as to be appealable under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.110(a)(2). See Dempsey v. Dempsey, 899 So.2d 1272 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005); Sanchez v. Masterhan, 837 So.2d 1161 (Fla. 1st DCA 2003).

Do we need a better rule?

A subcommittee of the Probate and Trust Litigation Committee has been looking at ways to add a bit more certainty to the question of when a probate order is or is not appealable. They've been working on this since 2007 and still no changes, so don't hold your breath. But in the meantime committee members Sean Kelley, Tom Karr and Peter Sachs have produced an extremely thorough 38-page white paper [click here] that's worth holding on to. Their analysis of the existing rule and how it's been applied by each of the DCAs is a must read the next time you're trying to figure out whether to file that notice of appeal . . . or not.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Greenberg Traurig, P.A. v. Bresnahan, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 383622 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb 18, 2009)

In the linked-to case the trustee asserted the "advice of counsel defense" to a lawsuit alleging a breach of fiduciary duty. Here's how the defense was asserted:

Within that trust litigation, D'Andrea asserted the “advice of counsel defense,” pointing to his consultation with Greenberg Traurig and, specifically, attorney Francis B. Brogan, Jr. D'Andrea moved for summary judgment, and provided a detailed affidavit from attorney Brogan. Within that affidavit, attorney Brogan addresses the legal advice given regarding the property at issue in the trust litigation.

This defense may ultimately work, but it comes with a risk: once you open the door to your lawyer's advice by using it as an affirmative defense, you've waived the attorney-client privilege within the scope of that advice. And that may be OK, but be ready to litigate the "scope" of your waiver. Which is what happened in this case:

What followed was a subpoena for deposition duces tecum and notice of taking deposition on the non-party Records Custodian for Greenberg Traurig, P.A. The subpoena sought broad categories of discovery relating to the Trust.

Greenberg Traurig moved to quash the subpoena and for protective orders, arguing that D'Andrea's limited waiver of the attorney-client privilege applied only to the transaction surrounding the specific property at issue in the underlying litigation. Paradise Divers, Inc. v. Upmal, 943 So.2d 812, 814 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006). Nevertheless, the firm produced documents, though it redacted portions which it deemed beyond that limited waiver. Following the trial court's in camera inspection of the redacted documents, it ordered Greenberg Traurig's Record Custodian to produce all records, in unredacted form.

And here's why the 4th DCA quashed the probate court's order:

We quash the portion of the order that requires the unredacted production of documents GT 01, GT 05, GT 11-12, and GT 13-30. The subject matter associated with documents GT 01 and GT 11-12 is beyond the scope of the express limited waiver. Paradise Divers, 943 So.2d at 814. The remaining redactions concern internal housekeeping information and billing entries and fee amounts, which in this case should remain confidential. See generally Paskoski v. Johnson, 626 So.2d 338, 339 (Fla. 4th DCA 1993); see also Jacob v. Barton, 877 So.2d 935 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004).

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Garcia v. Celestron, --- So.2d ----, 2009 WL 249211 (Fla. 3d DCA Feb 04, 2009)

In the linked-to opinion the 3d DCA provides a solid summary of the procedural steps and law governing adjudications of ambiguous wills in Florida. This is a bread-and-butter issue for most probate litigators, so it’s helpful to have an appellate opinion you can whip out for your judge or opposing counsel if anyone needs a quick refresher course on how these cases should be handled.

Step One: The court needs to rule on whether the disputed provisions of the will are ambiguous:

We affirm the trial court's ruling that the disputed provisions of the will are ambiguous . . . The will left the decedent's house to his widow, and should she predecease him, the property was to be divided among six named family beneficiaries. The will then provides as follows:

I further leave a life estate in said property to my daughter, Mercy Maqueira [Mercy Garcia], so that she may live in and enjoy this property.... Upon her death, the property shall be sold and the proceeds divided equally among those living at the time of my death so named herein.... If Mercy so desires, she may sell this property at anytime and divide the proceeds as above stated.

Step Two: If the will’s ambiguous, you’re entitled to present parole evidence at trial to determine it’s meaning:

The question presented to the trial court was whether the language “so that she may live in and enjoy this property” made the life estate determinable, requiring Mercy to either live in the property or sell it, or whether the term is one of clarification, allowing her to choose whether to live in it or not. The trial court concluded that these terms taken together are ambiguous and took evidence to determine the testator's intent. Based upon the evidence, the trial court concluded that the decedent intended that Mercy be provided with a place for her and her children to live, and that if Mercy did not live in the property, it should be sold and the proceeds equally distributed among the six listed beneficiaries. Evidence adduced at trial revealed that Mercy did not live in the house, but rented it out, and that she had no intent to live there. The trial court ordered the property to be sold because Mercy did not live in it and evidenced no intention to live in it in the future. Mercy Garcia appealed.

We agree with the trial court that the provisions of the will are ambiguous. As such, the trial court correctly received parol evidence in order to resolve the apparently contradictory provisions. See Perkins v. O'Donald, 82 So. 401 (Fla.1919) (holding that parol evidence may be received if the will is in some way ambiguous, in order to ascertain the testator's intent); Harbie v. Falk, 907 So.2d 566 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005); Campbell v. Campbell, 489 So.2d 774, 776-777 (Fla. 3d DCA 1986); Hulsh v. Hulsh, 431 So.2d 658 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983); In re Estate of Rice, 406 So.2d 469 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981). The trial court based its findings on competent, substantial evidence, and we thus affirm the final judgment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks