Lee v. Estate of Payne

Lee v. Estate of Payne, 148 So.3d 776, 2013 WL 5225200 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013)

This case involved a decedent's fiance's attempt to admit the decedent's Colorado holographic will in Florida (where the decedent owned three homes).  The holographic will left the fiance one of the houses, plus $40,000 from the sale of the other two houses.  He left his father the remainder of the sale proceedings.

The decedent's sister and Colorado personal representative filed a Petition for Administration in Florida, and alleged that the holographic will was not valid under F.S. 732.502(2), since it was not executed in compliance with F.S. 732.502(1).  She listed the decedent's minor daughter as the only beneficiary of the estate.

The fiance sought to have the Florida court admit the holographic will to probate to give full faith and credit to the Colorado court.  

F.S. 734.104 say that a foreign will that devises Florida real property and is admitted to probate in another state can be admitted in Florida only if that will was executed as required by chapter 732.  Since the Colorado will was not witnessed, it did not comply with Florida law and thus could not be admitted in Florida.

The fiance argued that F.S. 732.502(2) unconstitutionally restrains the testator's right to devise property.  However, in 1966, the Florida Supreme Court decided a similar case and in that case affirmed a trial court's order denying the probate of a holographic will.  Since that case has not yet been overruled, the Court held that it was required to hold that the holographic will could not be admitted to probate in Florida.  It then certified the following question to the Supreme Court: "Do sections 732.502(2) and 734.104(a) violate Article I, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution by categorically defeating the intent of the testator of a handwritten holographic will without a rational relation to the fraud it seeks to cure?"





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Goodstein v. Goodstein

Goodstein v. Goodstein ,  263 So.3d 78 (Fla. 4th DCA 2019) I started this blog in 2013, and this is the first time I have the opportunity to write about a case that I am actually involved in. This case involves a long-running dispute between the father of the decedent, the personal representative of the estate, and the decedent's children, the beneficiaries of the estate (the personal representative's grandchildren). The personal representative appealed a decision by the trial court which required all estate assets to be placed in a restricted depository. Restricted depositories have been common-place in Miami-Dade County for quite some time. Recently, South Palm Beach County has instituted as similar requirement. As a matter of course, all estates opened since the introduction of this policy have been required to place all assets in a restricted depository and assets may only be withdrawn with a court order. Here, the beneficiaries had concerns about their actions a...
Read more

Malleiro v. Mori, Mori and Corallo

Malleiro v. Mori , 182 So.3d 5 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015) This case serves as a lesson in rarely used words buried in the Florida Probate Code.  The Court was asked to determine whether an unsigned notarial will executed in Argentina was a valid will under the Florida Probate Code.  The Court ultimately held that because the Argentine will was unsigned, even though it was a notarial will, it was a noncupative will prohibited by the Florida Probate Code. The testator executed a valid will in New York distributing her real and personal property located in the United States.  Four months later, she executed a second will in Argentina.  The Argentine will was not executed with the usual formalities of American wills.  Instead, the testator orally pronounced her testamentary wishes to a notary who transcribed them in the presence of three witnesses.  The testator orally approved the typewritten will in the presence of the witnesses, and the notary signed and st...
Read more

Cantero v. Estate of Caswell

Cantero v. Estate of Caswell , --- So.3d --- (Fla. 3d DCA 2019) This decision involves an appeal of a trial court's order striking a claim as untimely. The claimant argued that his claim was timely because he was a reasonably ascertainable creditor who was not served with notice. The Court disagreed. The claimant argued that the estate should have known about his claim based on several conversations he had with the personal representative and the personal representative's attorneys. He was claiming an ownership interest in the decedent's real property because he paid for the property and paid the mortgage premiums over 20 years prior to the decedent's death for a 5 year period of time while he has in a relationship with the decedent. In his calls to the personal representative, the claimant apparently only mentioned that he had left some car parts in the garage and never said anything about an ownership interest in the property. He argued that he inquired, ...
Read more