IN RE ESTATE OF WILLIAM T. KOOP, DECEASED. JUNE ELLEN NASH, APPELLANT,
v.
LITTLE RIVER BANK AND TRUST COMPANY, 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.
In this estate dispute, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a lower court order rejecting a challenge to a bequest naming a bank as trustee, where bank officers and employees served as attesting witnesses. Although the court acknowledged that using disinterested witnesses would have been better practice, it held that the bequest was valid because the bank received no actual beneficial interest from the estate.
The bequest is valid and not void under the statute because the bank, as trustee, did not actually receive any beneficial interest from the estate, even though using disinterested witnesses would have been better practice.
“All devises and bequests to subscribing witnesses are void unless there are at least two other disinterested subscribing witnesses to the will.”
Statement of the statutory rule challenged by appellant regarding bequests to subscribing witnesses
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceWilliam T. Koop executed a will naming Little River Bank and Trust Company as trustee. At the time of execution, two officers and an employee of the b…
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.
In this appeal, the appellant [who was the petitioner in the county judge’s court] seeks review of an order denying a petition to declare the bequest of a decedent null and void as being contrary to the provisions of § 731.07(5), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
It appears, from the undisputed facts in this cause, that at the time the deceased executed his will two officers and an employee of the appellee-bank were the subscribing and attesting witnesses. Two of said witnesses were stockholders in the bank. The Last Will and Testament of the deceased named the bank as trustee, and it is the contention of the appellant that the lower court erred in failing to adjudicate the bequest to the hank, as trustee, null and *694void in view of the provisions of § 731.07(5), Fla.Stat., F.S.A.1
Under such circumstances, it would have been a better practice if the hank had used subscribing and attesting witnesses who were not its officers, employees or stockholders, and then there could be no question of impropriety. However, it does not appear that the bank, as trustee, actually received any beneficial interest from the estate. The order of the county judge was correct, in light of the principles announced in In re Roger’s Estate, 15 N.J.Super. 189, 83 A.2d 268; Leonard v. Stanton, 93 N.H. 113, 36 A.2d 271; Vol. 2, Page on Wills (Bowe-Parks Revised), § 19.94. Therefore, the order under review is hereby affirmed.
Affirmed.