317 So.3d 1179
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2021Background
- Decedent Arlene Matthews-Walton executed a 2003 will that directed sale of her Key West home with proceeds split: Navarro and three siblings each 24%, and Marvalene only 4%; Navarro also received a vacant lot; Marvalene received nothing of the residual.
- Navarro (a child and close caregiver) petitioned to admit the 2003 will; Thurston (alternate PR named in will) joined the petition; Marvalene and others objected alleging undue influence (and other grounds), and Kendra substituted for a deceased objector.
- The parties stipulated that the presumption of undue influence applied under Fla. Stat. § 733.107(2) and that Navarro (the alleged wrongdoer) bore the burden to prove the will was not procured by undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Trial testimony showed a strained relationship between Ms. Matthews and Marvalene (Marvalene received a loan that was never repaid) and a close, caretaking relationship between Navarro and Ms. Matthews.
- The trial court found Navarro met her burden and that the 2003 will was not the product of undue influence, admitted the will to probate, and appointed Thurston personal representative; Marvalene and Kendra appealed.
- On appeal the court reviewed the legal issue de novo and factual findings for competent substantial evidence, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 2003 will was procured by undue influence (given parties’ stipulation shifting burden to Navarro) | Navarro: she met the stipulated burden by a preponderance, offering reasonable explanations for her role and evidence of a close caregiver relationship and legitimate estate planning reasons | Appellants (Marvalene/Kendra): the presumption of undue influence applied and the evidence showed Navarro exerted undue influence; trial court misapplied the presumption and misweighed evidence | Affirmed: trial court properly applied the stipulated burden and, based on competent substantial evidence, found Navarro proved absence of undue influence |
| Standard of review and weight of evidence regarding presumption under Fla. Stat. § 733.107(2) | Navarro: parties’ stipulation placed burden on her and court should assess whether she rebutted presumption by preponderance | Appellants: urged appellate reexamination of trial court’s application and factual findings | Court: applied de novo review to legal question and substantial-evidence review to facts; declined to reweigh evidence and found no error |
Key Cases Cited
- Carpenter v. Carpenter, 253 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1971) (rebuttable presumption of undue influence arises when a substantial beneficiary stands in a confidential relationship and actively procures a will)
- Hack v. Janes, 878 So. 2d 440 (Fla. 5th DCA 2004) (statutory presumption under § 733.107(2) shifts burden to alleged wrongdoer)
- In re Estate of Murphy, 184 So. 3d 1221 (Fla. 2d DCA 2016) (application of evidentiary presumptions reviewed de novo)
- Madrigal v. Madrigal, 22 So. 3d 828 (Fla. 3d DCA 2009) (trial court’s factual findings not disturbed absent clear error; competent substantial evidence standard)
- Diaz v. Ashworth, 963 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 3d DCA 2007) (affirming probate court where evidence supported finding no undue influence)