Blinn v. Clarman

Blinn v. Carmen, --- So.2d --- (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), 40 Fla. L. Weekly, D678b

In this decision, the Court affirmed a trial court's decision invalidating a will based on undue influence because substantial competent evidence supported the finding.  The facts of this case are familiar to anyone who has practiced in this area.  In 2007, the decedent married his fourth wife at age 82, at a time when his mental health had already begun to deteriorate and he already suffered from progressive dementia.  He ultimately changed his estate plan to leave everything to the wife.

 While I always enjoy seeing an undue influence decision, this one falls squarely in line with the undue influence cases we are familiar with.  The wife's behavior was egregious-- not only did she successfully persuade her husband to abandon his prior estate plan (which left everything to his daughter) and instead leave everything to her, but she alienated him from his family, she aggressively convinced him that his daughter was destroying their family business, she herself changed the beneficiary on the decedent's life insurance policy from the daughter to herself, and while the decedent was hospitalized and diagnosed with severe dementia, attempted to have him execute a durable power of attorney in her favor.  The trial court found that if the wife were "so bold as to openly display such influence over [the decedent]," then the court could "reasonably infer that similar or greater influence was occurring in the dark during their marriage."

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 stamped the will.  The testator
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, &quo
Read more