Gordon v. Kleinman
120 So. 3d 120
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Joel Davis died August 7, 2011; his 2009 will was admitted to probate and Laurie Kleinman was appointed personal representative.
- Marlene Gordon (petitioner) filed a Petition for Revocation of Probate alleging Davis’s 1983 will (which named her) was the only valid will and that later wills (1992, 2003, 2008, 2009) were invalid.
- Respondent moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to plead undue influence; she attached the later wills showing Gordon was not a beneficiary.
- Gordon amended her petition twice, ultimately alleging undue influence and testamentary incapacity (including insane delusion) as to the later wills and attaching the 1983 will.
- The trial court granted the second motion to dismiss, finding Gordon lacked standing and failed to state a cause of action; Gordon appealed.
- The appellate court reviewed whether Gordon’s Second Amended Petition sufficiently alleged she was an "interested person" and that prior wills excluding her were invalid.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek revocation of probate | Gordon alleged she was beneficiary under 1983 will and that all later wills were invalid, making her an interested person | Kleinman argued Gordon lacked standing because later, presumptively valid wills exclude her | Court held Gordon pleaded sufficient facts to show she was an interested person and reversed dismissal |
| Sufficiency of pleading undue influence/testamentary incapacity | Gordon alleged undue influence and lack of capacity/insane delusion as grounds to invalidate post-1983 wills | Kleinman contended allegations were insufficient to state a cause of action | Court found the Second Amended Petition sufficiently alleged grounds to challenge the later wills at the pleading stage |
| Burden when prior wills also exclude petitioner | Gordon argued prior wills excluding her are invalid, so she may seek revocation | Kleinman relied on precedent that petitioner must show prior wills excluding her are invalid | Court reaffirmed petitioner must plead that prior excluding wills are invalid and concluded Gordon did so adequately for now |
| Standard of review on dismissal for lack of standing | Gordon urged de novo review and that allegations must be taken as true | Kleinman relied on trial court’s dismissal | Court applied de novo review, accepting well-pled allegations and drawing inferences for pleader |
Key Cases Cited
- Agee v. Brown, 73 So.3d 882 (2011) (orders of dismissal based on lack of standing reviewed de novo)
- Wheeler v. Powers, 972 So.2d 285 (2008) (on accepting well-pled allegations and inferences in standing review)
- Payne v. City of Miami, 927 So.2d 904 (2005) (procedural standards cited for dismissal review)
- Wehrheim v. Golden Pond Assisted Living Facility, 905 So.2d 1002 (2005) (holding petitioner must establish prior wills that exclude petitioner are invalid to have standing)