Fiel v. Hoffman

Fiel v. Hoffman, 169 So.3d 1274 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015), 2015 WL 4549604

This case involved the effect of the Slayer Statute and undue influence on a murdered decedent's will.  The decedent was murdered by his wife, who also murdered the decedent's mother, to ensure that she and her family would receive the decedent's estate on his death.  The decedent's will provided that if the decedent's mother did not survive him, his estate would go to his wife.  If neither the mother or wife survived him, his estate would go to his wife's daughter by another marriage and her children.

The trial court held that the wife was not entitled to participate in the estate based on F.S. 732.802 (the "Slayer Statute"), and that the statute required the court to treat her as having predeceased her husband, leaving her daughter and her daughter's children, and not the decedent's intestate heirs, as the beneficiaries of the estate. But the trial court also held that the decedent's intestate heirs have a cause of action for undue influence in the execution of the decedent's wills leaving everything to his wife and her family.  Both issues were raised on appeal.

The Court first addressed the Slayer Statute issue.  The decedent's cousins argued that the Slayer Statute should be interpreted to also bar the daughter and her children from inheriting.  The Court found that the Slayer Statute is clear and ambiguous and disinherits only the slayer or anyone who participates in the killing of the decedent from any rights to the victim's estate.  The Court refused to extend the prohibition on inheritance to the heirs of the slayer.

The Court then held that the decedent's intestate heirs were able to state a cause of action for undue influence, even though the "undue influencer" was the wife, and not her family, because they alleged that the entire will was tainted by the wife and the bequests in favor of her family could not be severed from the rest of the will.  The Court cited to the distinction between circumstances where only a portion of the will was procured by undue influence and circumstances where it appeared the entire instrument was the result of undue influence.  It held that the intestate heirs' allegations that the contested wills were entirely tainted and that the wife's actions were undertaken not only to benefit herself but also her family were enough to state a cause of action for undue influence as to the entire will. 


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

Estate of McKenzie v. Hi Rise Crane, Inc.

  Estate of McKenzie through McIntosch v. Hi Rise Crane, Inc. , --- So.3d ---, 2021 WL 3672215 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) The "relation back doctrine" as provided in F.S. 733.601 provides that a personal representative's powers "relate back in time to give acts by the person appointed, occurring before appointment and beneficial to the estate, the same effect as those occurring after appointment." Here, the nominated personal representative filed a workman's compensation petition for benefits on behalf of her deceased brother prior to her appointment as personal representative. The Judge of Compensation Claims dismissed her petition because she was not the personal representative when she filed the petition. The Court reversed, relying on Cunningham v. Florida Dep't of Child & Fams. , which held that, "it follows, from the fact that the plaintiff can amend to reflect his capacity as personal representative, that claims which are properly recoverable by...
Read more