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 and the witnesses did not sign the will.  The beneficiaries of the Argentine will were completely different than those of the New York will.  

The Court considered whether the Argentine will could be admitted to probate under Florida law.  F.S. 732.502(1) requires that a will be signed by the testator and the witnesses.  But F.S. 732.502(2) relaxes the requirements for the wills of nonresidents, in that it recognizes as valid a foreign will of a nonresident if the nonresident's will is valid under the laws of the state or country where executed.  However, even if executed by a nonresident, Florida law does not recognize two types of wills: holographic wills and noncupative wills.  Unfortunately, the Probate Code fails to define "noncupative" wills.  Black's Law Dictionary defines a noncupative will as a "will made by the verbal declaration of the testator, and usually dependent merely on oral testament for proof."  The Court noted that the classic noncupative will is a deathbed declaration.  

The Court then acknowledge that the Probate Code recognizes a nonresidents' "notarial will" in F.S. 733.205 by providing that a copy may be admitted to probate if the original is required to be retained in the foreign country and if the original could have been admitted to probate in this state.  But again, the Probate Code fails to define "notarial" wills.  Generally, the Court noted, a notarial will is a will whose creation is supervised by a civil law notary who then permanently stores the will.  The generally accepted definition of a notarial will does seem to include the signature of the testator, notary and witnesses.  

Ultimately, the Court held that the Argentine will was a notarial will, but was a type of notarial will that is noncupative because it was not signed by the testator. Thus, the unsigned Argentine will could not be admitted to probate in Florida.  

The Court invited the legislature to revisit the Florida Probate Code to include definitions of "notarial," "noncupative," "holographic," and "nonresident."


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Rizk v. Rizk

Rizk v. Rizk, 260 So.3d 467 (Fla. 3d DCA 2018)
This decision centers around the ability of a beneficiary to challenge a will executed in another country even if they did not contest that will in the country where it was executed. Here, the will was purportedly executed in Haiti in accordance with Haitian law. The beneficiary tried to challenge the will in Florida, alleging that the decedent was not actually in Haiti on the day the will was purportedly signed, and that the witnesses did not sign the will on that date. 
F.S. 732.502(2) provides that a nonresident's will will be treated as valid in Florida if the will is valid under the laws of the state or country where the will was executed. Because the beneficiary had not challenged the will's validity in Haiti and was receiving benefits from that will, the Court upheld the trial court's determination that the 2013 will was valid in Haiti.
Read more

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 as personal …
Read more

Bitezakis v. Bitezakis

Bitezakis v. Bitezakis, 264 So.3d 297 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019)
While it seems easy enough to execute a will, this case reminds us that a client's attempt to do so at home without the guidance of a lawyer may have serious unintended consequences if the will is not executed in strict compliance with the signature requirements of F.S. 732.502.
Here, the decedent and two friends were in his home when first, two witnesses signed a purported will of the decedent, and subsequently, the decedent began to sign the will but stopped after signing just his first name after his wife instructed him to stop because a notary was not present. The next day, she took the decedent to a notary, where he mistakenly executed an affidavit of subscribing witness in the presence of a notary. The trial court found that because it was the testator's intent that the document be his will, the will should be admitted to probate.
The Court reversed and found that because the will failed to conform to the requirements…
Read more