Sun Bank/Miami, N.A. v. Hogarth - 536 So. 2d 263 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988)

Rule:

A presumption of undue influence arises when a substantial beneficiary under a will occupies a confidential relationship with the testator and is active in procuring the contested will. Once a presumption of undue influence arises, the burden of persuasion shifts to the beneficiary to offer a reasonable explanation for his or her active role in the decedent's affairs, and, specifically, in the preparation of the will. Only a minimal response is necessary to overcome the presumption.

Facts:

Appellant individuals, Robert Grayson, et al., were beneficiaries under the last will and an amended trust agreement. Appellee individuals, Martha Hogarth and Helaine Newman et al. had been beneficiaries along with appellants under an earlier version of the will, a first codicil, and an earlier version of the trust agreement. After Lilly Glickstein’s death, appellees contested the will, and the trial court voided the two wills, a codicil, and an amended trust agreement, after finding that one of the appellants had exercised undue influence over the decedent and the other appellant had been aware of it. Appellants including the appellant bank as personal representative of the estate challenged the decision.

Issue:

Did the trial court err in revoking probate of the will of the decedent after finding that they were the product of undue influence?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the revocation of probate by the circuit court. The court held that the trial court correctly gave credence to the evidence showing that the decedent suffered from an organic brain syndrome and Alzheimer's disease at the time she executed the documents at issue. Thus, the appellant who was found to have exercised influence over the decedent and had a confidential relationship with her had actively procured the documents at issue. The appellant was also present at the execution of the documents and was involved in the selection of new lawyers to prepare the documents unbeknownst to the decedent's prior lawyers. Moreover, he was involved in the instructions for the preparation of the new documents and had knowledge of their content. Considering these, the court held that the facts in the case were sufficient to cause a presumption of undue influence to arise and to support a finding of undue influence by the circuit court.