- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
CATES v. FRICKER
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant, Deborah Day Cates, petitioned for revocation of probate of her father's will, which excluded her as a beneficiary. The case reached the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, on appeal from the Circuit Court of Pinellas County. The trial court had entered summary judgment denying the appellant's petition, and this appeal challenges that ruling.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant qualifies as an "interested person" under Section 733.109(1), Florida Statutes (1987), with standing to bring an action for revocation of probate.
- Whether the appellant met her burden to overcome the facial validity of prior wills that excluded her as a beneficiary.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| In re Estate of Ballett, 426 So.2d 1196, 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983) | Defines "interested person" to include heirs at law who may bring an action for revocation of probate. | Used to determine that appellant was not an heir at law and thus lacked standing as an interested person. |
| Stewart v. Johnson, 142 Fla. 425, 194 So. 869 (1940) | Addresses principles related to wills and revocation, including the doctrine of dependent relative revocation. | Referenced to explain that prior exclusion in earlier wills does not automatically determine standing without showing invalidity of those wills. |
| Denson v. Fayson, 525 So.2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) | Related to probate litigation and will contests. | Supports the requirement that the contestant must show invalidity of prior wills excluding them. |
| In re Lubbe's Estate, 142 So.2d 130, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962) | Discusses the doctrine of dependent relative revocation and validity of wills. | Used to explain the burden on the contestant to prove invalidity of prior wills. |
| In re Estate of Pfeiffer, 34 Fla. Supp. 132 (Dade Cty. Ct.), aff'd, 240 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970) | Addresses burden of proof regarding validity of wills in probate contests. | Applied to confirm that appellant did not meet the burden to show invalidity of prior wills. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court affirmed the summary judgment denying the appellant's petition for revocation of probate. It reasoned that under Section 733.109(1), Florida Statutes (1987), only an "interested person," such as an heir at law, may bring such an action. The appellant was properly determined not to be an heir at law, and thus lacked standing. Although exclusion from prior wills alone does not conclusively establish lack of standing, the court emphasized that when a facially valid prior will excluding the contestant is presented, the burden shifts to the contestant to prove that the prior will was invalid or that the doctrine of dependent relative revocation does not apply. The prior wills were shown to be facially valid through signatures and notarization, and the appellant failed to meet her burden to challenge their validity. Therefore, the summary judgment was correctly entered in favor of the appellee.
Holding and Implications
Affirmed.
The court upheld the denial of the appellant's petition to revoke probate of the will. The direct consequence is that the will excluding the appellant remains valid and effective, and the appellant remains excluded as a beneficiary. The decision does not establish new precedent but reinforces the principle that standing and burden of proof requirements must be met by a will contestant.
LEHAN, Judge.
We affirm the summary judgment which denied appellant's petition for revocation of probate of her father's will which excluded appellant as a beneficiary. The basis for the summary judgment was that appellant "was specifically excluded as a beneficiary in two (2) previous Wills, the validity of which have not been questioned. . . ."
Section 733.109(1), Florida Statutes (1987), provides that any "interested person" may bring an action for revocation of probate. An "interested person" may be an heir at law. In re Estate of Ballett, 426 So.2d 1196, 1199 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). However, it was properly determined in this case that appellant is not an heir at law and thus is not such an "interested person."
That there had been previous wills of the decedent which also excluded appellant was not by itself necessarily determinative of her lack of standing as an heir at law to contest the will. See Kelley, "Probate Litigation," Basic Practice Under the Florida Probate Code § 20.24 (1987) ("While it is normally considered that the doctrine of dependent relative revocation will reinstate the next prior will if the present will is determined to be invalid, contrary to popular belief, this is not an imperative."). See also Stewart v. Johnson, 142 Fla. 425, 194 So. 869 (1940); Denson v. Fayson, 525 So.2d 432 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988); In re Lubbe's Estate, 142 So.2d 130, 135 (Fla. 2d DCA 1962). But when an at least facially valid previous will is before the court, the burden is on the potential heir at law who wishes to contest a will to show that the previous will which excluded the contestant was invalid or that the doctrine of dependent relative revocation did not apply. Such facial validity may be shown, as it was here, through copies of previous wills which include copies of the signatures of the testator and witnesses and of the notary certificate. Appellant did not carry her above described burden. See In re Estate of Pfeiffer, 34 Fla. Supp. 132 (Dade Cty. Ct.), aff'd, 240 So.2d 211 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970).
Affirmed.
CAMPBELL, C.J., and HALL, J., concur.
Alert