The Court found that the legislative history of Fla.
In response to the brother’s application for review, the Florida Supreme Court certified the case as having great public importance and affirmed the decision of the appellate court. Therefore, the appellate found that it was irrelevant whether the property was acquired before or after the will was executed.
Ezs daighter trial#
The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and entered summary judgment in favor of the nieces, concluding that the statutory presumption did not apply because the disputed property was not even alluded to in the will. §732.6005(2), which provided that a will should be construed to pass all property that the testator owned at death, including after-acquired property. The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the brother, citing Fla. As such, they argued, the decedent died intestate as to the cash (which had been invested in an investment account) and the real property the decedent acquired from her sister. The nieces argued that without a general devise or a residuary clause, the will contained no mechanism to dispose of the after-acquired property. He asserted that Florida law had a legal presumption against constructions resulting in partial intestacy. The brother argued that he should be the one to inherit the land and cash that the decedent had inherited from her sister because he was the only named beneficiary in the will. The decedent’s nieces from a predeceased brother asserted an interest in the probate action. He sought to have a court determine who was to inherit the property that the decedent acquired after the execution of her will. The court appointed the decedent’s brother to be the personal representative of the decedent’s estate. Because there were not two witness signatures, the purported addendum was not an enforceable testamentary instrument under Florida law. The document also attempted to name the living brother’s daughter as the decedent’s personal representative. Both the decedent and her brother’s daughter signed the document. After the death of her sister, the decedent executed a document entitled “Just a note,” which stated that it was an addendum to her will and that she wished to leave all of her worldly possessions to her brother because her sister had passed away. Three years, later, the decedent’s sister predeceased her, leaving cash and real property to the decedent. The will contained no other distributive provisions, including no residuary clause. She also wrote that if her sister predeceased her, she wanted “all listed” property to go to her living brother. The decedent wrote her will on an “E-Z Legal Form.” She handwrote instructions on the preprinted form, stating that she wished to give certain “possessions listed” to her sister. The case points out the perils of using pre-printed legal forms. The Florida Supreme Court has refused to reform a pre-printed will lacking a residuary clause to devise after-acquired property to the stated beneficiary.
0 kommentar(er)
