Basile v. Aldrich
70 So. 3d 682
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2011Background
- Basile and Krajewski, nieces of Ann Aldrich, challenge a summary final judgment in favor of James Aldrich (Ann’s brother) regarding disposition of Ann’s estate.
- Ann’s 2004 will lists specific bequests (house, contents, bank accounts, IRA, etc.) and provides a contingent gift to James if Mary Jane Eaton predeceased Ann; no residuary clause is present.
- Eaton dies before Ann, leaving cash and Putnam County real property to Ann’s sister (Aldrich’s wife’s sister’s estate), which Aldrich then handles as personal representative.
- Ann dies in 2009 owning Putnam County real property and a Fidelity non-IRA account not mentioned in the will; Aldrich petitions for construction to decide who takes sale proceeds and cash.
- Trial court held that 732.6005(2) controls and that after-acquired property passes to Aldrich; nieces argued the will disposes only listed items and leaves after-acquired property to intestacy.
- Court reverses and remands, concluding the will did not dispose of unmentioned property, so it descends by intestate succession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 732.6005(2) requires passing after-acquired property by will when not residuary. | Basile/Krajewski: no dispositive language; after-acquired property should not pass under will. | Aldrich: statute applies to pass all property unless contrary intent shown. | Partial intestacy; after-acquired property does not pass under the will here. |
| Whether Ann’s will shows an intent to dispose of all property. | Will covers only specific items; unmentioned assets fall to intestacy. | Intent appears only for listed items; after-acquired not disposed. | No dispositive language for Putnam County realty or non-IRA account; intestacy governs those assets. |
| Whether construction favors avoiding intestacy where the will is explicit about certain items. | Intention to dispose of some items should not create broader intestacy. | Constructive approach would override explicit bequests. | Construction favors the testator’s explicit intent; no residuary clause present for unmentioned assets. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Barker, 448 So.2d 28 (Fla.1st DCA 1984) (addressed after-acquired property; held Barker did not apply to the case before the court)
- In re Vail's Estate, 67 So.2d 665 (Fla.1953) (primary purpose to permit transmissal of after-acquired property by will)
- DePass v. Kansas Masonic Home, 181 So. 410 (Fla. 1938) (early precedent on will construction and after-acquired property)
- In re Estate of McGahee, 550 So.2d 83 (Fla.1st DCA 1989) (will construction to effectuate testator’s intent)
- In re Stephan's Estate, 194 So. 343 (Fla.) (illustrates intestacy and will construction principles)