GLORIA SAPPER, APPELLANT,
v.
TOBI MERRELL, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the trial court's judgment regarding active procurement in an estate matter, applying established factors for determining whether a beneficiary actively procured a will.
A trial court's findings regarding active procurement in will execution are entitled to deference and should not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly unsupported by competent substantial evidence.
[1] Active procurement of a will may be established through consideration of non-exclusive factors including the beneficiary's presence at execution, knowledge of contents, r…
Previewing 1 of 1 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Because it is the trial court who has the first-hand opportunity to hear and observe the witnesses as they testify, the trial court is in a superior position to weigh the evidence and credibility of the witnesses.”
Explaining the deference owed to trial court findings of fact in estate matters.
This case involves a dispute over whether a beneficiary actively procured a will, requiring examination of the beneficiary's involvement in the will's…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Will Execution cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Affirmed. See In re Estate of Carpenter, 253 So. 2d 697, 701 (Fla.1971)(providing a non-exclusive list of factors for consideration in a determination of active procurement:(a) presence of the beneficiary at the execution of the will;(b) presence of the beneficiary on those occasions when the testator expressed a desire to make a will; (c) recommendation by the beneficiary of an attorney to draw the will; (d) knowledge of the contents of the will by the beneficiary prior to execution; (e) giving of instructions on preparation of the will by the beneficiary to the attorney drawing the will; (f) securing of witnesses to the will by the beneficiary; and (g) safekeeping of the will by the beneficiary subsequent to execution.); Lonergan v. Estate of Budahazi, 669 So. 2d 1062, 1064 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996) (Because it is the trial court who has the first — hand opportunity to hear and observe the witnesses as they testify, the trial court is in a superior position to weigh the evidence and credibility of the witnesses. It is not the function of an appellate court to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court unless there is a lack of competent substantial evidence to support the findings upon which a final judgment is based.); In re Hobein’s Estate, 238 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)(findings of fact made by a court sitting as a trier of both law and facts are entitled to same weight as verdict and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by evidence).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- In re Est. of Coketine Bray Carpenter v. Carpenter, 253 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1971)
- Lonergan v. Est. OF Ethel L. Budahazi, 669 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 5th DCA 1996)
- In re Est. of Thomas Hobein, 238 So. 2d 497 (Fla. 1st DCA 1970)