MIAMI BAY OAKS SOROPTIMIST HOME FOR THE AGED, INC., SHRINERS' CRIPPLED CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL AND LINA MEYER, APPELLANTS,
v.
MOYSE B. SMITH, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JULIA F. PFEIFFER, DECEASED, APPELLEE; RAYMOND G. ALLAMONG AND JEAN D. THAXTON, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF MARY GANDEE, DECEASED, APPELLANTS, V. MOYSE B. SMITH, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JULIA F. PFEIFFER, 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 consolidated appeal, the Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed a probate court's decision validating the will of Julia F. Pfeiffer against challenges claiming the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity and was subject to undue influence. The court applied the well-settled rule that a probate court's findings on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed on appeal absent misapprehension of the legal effect of the proof or lack of evidentiary support.
The probate court's finding that the will was valid, executed with testamentary capacity, and free from undue influence was supported by substantial competent evidence and did not misapprehend the legal effect of the proof. The order denying the petitions to revoke probate was affirmed.
“the Court finds that the preponderance of the evidence shows that, on November 10, 1966, the date of the Will heretofore admitted to probate, Julia F. Pfeiffer had testamentary capacity and was not subject to undue influence, and that the Will of that date is a valid Will.”
The probate court's key finding supporting the validity of the will based on the preponderance of evidence.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceJulia F. Pfeiffer executed a will on November 10, 1966. After her death, multiple parties (Miami Bay Oaks Soroptimist Home for the Aged, Shriners' Cri…
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 Presumption Of Undue Influence cases and more on FLexlaw
The appellants by these consolidated appeals seek reversal of an order of the county judge’s court of Dade County denying their separate petitions to revoke probate of the will of Julia F. Pfeiffer, deceased.
As a preliminary to denial of the petitions, the order contained the following recital and findings: “[A]nd the Court having heard the issues of competency and undue influence, and the conflicting proof adduced by the parties thereof, and the Court finds that the preponderance of the evidence shows that, on November 10, 1966, the date of the Will heretofore admitted to probate, Julia F. Pfeiffer had testamentary capacity and was not subject to undue influence, and that the Will of that date is a valid Will.”
The appellants in appeal No. 68-720 contend the county judge erred by failing to hold that the testatrix lacked capacity to execute the will, and was subjected to undue influence in the execution thereof. Additionally, they argue that the evidence was insufficient to establish publication of the will, and that the executrix in her testimony waived the dead man’s statute (§ 90.05 Fla.Stat., F.S.A.). The appellants in appeal No. 68-727 contend the evidence showed the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity and showed undue influence; that the circumstances disclosed a presumption of undue influence which was not overcome; and that the execution and attestation of the will were not proved.
We have considered those contentions in the light of the record and briefs, and find them to be without merit. No useful purpose would be served by a restatement of the evidence here. The order of the county judge holding that the will was validly made, and rejecting the claim of incapacity and undue influence, was supported by substantial competent evidence, and it has not been shown that the county judge mis*445apprehended the legal effect of the evidence as a whole.
In the case of In re Donnelly’s Estate, 137 Fla. 459, 188 So. 108 (opinion on rehearing, at pp. 117-118), the Supreme Court said: “The court has ruled that the conclusion of the probate court on conflicting evidence will not be disturbed unless the legal effect of the proof has been misapprehended or there is a lack of evidence to support the findings. Hooper v. Stokes, 107 Fla. 607, 145 So. 855, 146 So. 668; Parker v. Penny, 95 Fla. 922, 117 So. 703.” That rule has been so repeatedly pronounced and uniformly observed by appellate courts as to preclude the necessity for further citation of cases so holding.
No reversible error having been made to appear, the order appealed from is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
In re Pfeiffer's Will, 34 Fla. Supp. 132 (Dade Cty. J. Ct. 1970)…ist Home for the Aged, Inc., et al v. Smith, as Executrix of the Estate of Julia F. Pfeiffer, consolidated with Allamong and Jean D. Thaxton, Executrix of the Estate of Mary Gandee, deceased v. Smith, as Executrix of the Estate of Julia F. Pfeiffer, 224 So. 2d 444, certiorari denied by Supreme Court without opinion, 232 So. 2d 175, 179. That under statutes which permit the contest of wills by persons interested or claiming to be interested in the decedent’s estate, the general rule is that a contestant must…
-
Miami Bay Oaks Soroptimist Home for the Aged, Inc. v. Smith, 232 So. 2d 179 (Fla. 1969)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 224 So. 2d 444.…
-
Allamong v. Smith, 232 So. 2d 175 (Fla. 1969)…Certiorari denied without opinion. 224 So. 2d 444.…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hooper v. Stokes, 107 Fla. 607 (Fla. 1933)
- In re Est. of Mary A. Donnelly v. Ashby, 137 Fla. 459 (Fla. 1934)
- Parker v. Penny, 95 Fla. 922 (Fla. 1928)
- Seaboard Air Line Ry. Co. v. Culbreath, 96 Fla. 15 (Fla. 1928)
- Lowenstein v. The Dixie Holding Co., 108 Fla. 590 (Fla. 1933)