329 So.3d 199
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2021Background
- Testator William Hadash executed a will dated June 12, 2013 that devised nearly his entire estate to his long‑time companion, Diane Swiss; prior wills had provided for his three children.
- Swiss had a confidential relationship with the testator, accompanied him to multiple attorneys, recommended and contacted counsel, faxed edited drafts, and otherwise assisted in arranging estate‑planning meetings.
- By the time of the 2013 will, the testator’s physical and cognitive health had markedly declined (falls, hip fracture, dementia diagnosis shortly after execution, evidence of prior cerebral infarctions); Swiss managed his finances and limited his children’s access.
- The 2013 will contained factual errors (incorrect residency, inaccurate affidavit statements) and the drafting attorney lacked a normal file and could not recall execution details.
- The trial court found the 2013 will procured by undue influence, admitted the 2001 will to probate instead, and entered a judgment invalidating the 2013 will.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Flanagan) | Defendant's Argument (Swiss) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a rebuttable presumption of undue influence arose under Carpenter based on active procurement by a substantial beneficiary in a confidential relationship | Swiss actively procured the 2013 will: arranged attorneys, was present/participatory, edited drafts, controlled testator’s affairs | Swiss asserts her involvement was innocent/helpful and denies undue influence; challenges sufficiency of evidence | Court: Presumption arose — Swiss met Carpenter criteria and other suspicious circumstances; will invalidated |
| Whether the trial court’s factual findings are supported by competent, substantial evidence and reviewed properly | Trial evidence and credibility findings support undue influence | Swiss contends findings legally and factually unsupported and asks for reweighing | Court: Applied de novo review to legal questions and substantial‑evidence standard to facts; declined to reweigh credibility and affirmed |
| Whether the 2001 will should be admitted to probate as the operative will | 2001 will valid and controls if 2013 invalid | Swiss opposed probate of 2001 will | Court: Admitted 2001 will to probate after invalidating 2013 will |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Carpenter, 253 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1971) (establishes rebuttable presumption of undue influence where substantial beneficiary in confidential relationship actively procures a will)
- Hannibal v. Navarro, 317 So. 3d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021) (standards of review—de novo for legal questions; substantial evidence for factual findings)
- Raimi v. Furlong, 702 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (definition of undue influence as over‑persuasion destroying free agency)
- In re Estate of Reid, 138 So. 2d 342 (Fla. 3d DCA 1962) (consideration of mental/physical disparities between testator and beneficiary)
- Cripe v. Atl. First Nat’l Bank of Daytona Beach, 422 So. 2d 820 (Fla. 1982) (inequality of mental strength can show active procurement)
- In re Burton’s Est., 45 So. 2d 873 (Fla. 1950) (undue influence may be proven by circumstantial evidence)