IN RE ESTATE OF COLES

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 7459.

Attorney(S)

Herb Blessing, of Wotitzky, Wotitzky Schoonover, Punta Gorda, for appellant. Bernard R. Moseley, of Farr, Farr Haymans, Punta Gorda, for appellees.

Judges

SHANNON, Judge.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal arises from a will contest involving the probate of the last will and testament of Mildred Coles, deceased. Mrs. Coles died on September 13, 1965, leaving no surviving spouse or lineal descendants. The appellant, First National Bank in Fort Myers, acting as executor of the will dated August 11, 1965, petitioned for its probate, which was initially granted by the county court. The appellees—Mrs. Coles' sister, three nieces, and nephew—filed a petition to revoke probate, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and insufficient disinterested witnesses. After a two-day hearing, the probate court revoked the will solely on the ground that Mrs. Coles lacked testamentary capacity at the time of execution, making no findings on the other alleged grounds.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether Mrs. Coles possessed testamentary capacity at the moment she executed the will dated August 11, 1965.
Whether the probate court erred in revoking the will based solely on lack of testamentary capacity.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant contended that Mrs. Coles was mentally competent when she executed the will on August 11, 1965.
Evidence suggested Mrs. Coles was alert and rational at the time of signing, despite having received narcotic medication earlier that day.

Appellees' Arguments

The appellees argued that Mrs. Coles lacked testamentary capacity due to the influence of narcotic drugs administered shortly before the will’s execution.
They also raised issues of undue influence and insufficient disinterested witnesses, though the court did not make findings on these grounds.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
In re Wilmott's Estate, Fla. 1953, 66 So.2d 465, 467	Definition of testamentary capacity requiring understanding of property, natural claimants, and will's effect; standard for appellate review of probate findings.	Used to clarify the legal standard for testamentary capacity and appellate deference to probate court findings.
In re Estate of Dunson, Fla.App. 1962, 141 So.2d 601, 604	Requirements for testamentary capacity	Supported the court’s understanding of the capacity needed at execution.
In re Estate of Bailey, Fla. App. 1960, 122 So.2d 243, 245	Testamentary capacity and effect of drug use on capacity	Provided precedent that drug use does not automatically negate capacity, but evidence must be evaluated.
In re Estate of Zimmerman, Fla. 1956, 84 So.2d 560, 561	Appellate review standard for probate court findings on testamentary capacity	Reinforced deference to probate court’s factual findings absent lack of substantial competent evidence.
Watts v. Newport, 1941, 149 Fla. 181, 185, 6 So.2d 829, 830	Standards for testamentary capacity and appellate review	Supported the court’s approach to reviewing capacity determinations.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court focused on whether Mrs. Coles possessed testamentary capacity at the moment she executed the will on August 11, 1965. Testamentary capacity requires that the testator understand in a general way the nature and extent of their property, their relationship to natural beneficiaries, and the practical effect of their will. The court noted that Mrs. Coles had received a narcotic injection (dilaudid) less than two hours before signing the will. Her treating physician testified that dilaudid affects intellect and reasoning and generally causes stupefaction. While there was evidence suggesting Mrs. Coles appeared alert and rational at signing, the existence of conflicting evidence compelled the court to defer to the probate court’s finding that she lacked testamentary capacity. The court emphasized the substantial competent evidence supporting this finding and affirmed the revocation of the will’s probate.

Holding and Implications

The order revoking the probate of the will dated August 11, 1965, is affirmed.

This decision directly affects the parties by upholding the revocation of the will based on lack of testamentary capacity. The court did not address other grounds for revocation and did not establish new precedent beyond affirming the probate court’s factual findings supported by substantial competent evidence.

Show full summary ...

IN RE ESTATE OF MILDRED COLES, DECEASED. FIRST NATIONAL BANK IN FORT MYERS, AS EXECUTOR OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT OF MILDRED COLES, DECEASED, APPELLANT, v. HELEN HEUCKSTAEDT, CHARLES SECKY, HATTIE KRKAVEC, LILLIAN DRABEK AND JEANNETTE SANDERSON, APPELLEES.

SHANNON, Judge.

This appeal is from an order rendered in a will contest suit revoking the probate of a will dated August 11, 1965, and purported to be the last will and testament of Mildred Coles, deceased. Appellant is the executor of such will, and appellees are Mrs. Coles' sister, three nieces, and nephew.

Mrs. Coles died on September 13, 1965, leaving neither surviving spouse nor any lineal descendants. Appellant petitioned for the probate of her purported will of August 11, 1965, and the court below ordered its admission. Appellees then filed a petition for revocation of probate, alleging lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and insufficient number of disinterested witnesses. After conducting a two-day hearing, the court revoked probate, ruling that Mrs. Coles had lacked testamentary capacity. It made no findings as to the other grounds urged in appellees' petition for revocation, basing its order solely on lack of testamentary capacity.

It appears that Mrs. Coles moved from Chicago, Illinois, to Port Charlotte, Florida, in 1964. Before leaving Chicago she had executed a will, dated January 30, 1964, in which she had made certain small bequests and had bequeathed the residue of her estate to appellees, each to take a fifth thereof. In March of 1965 she was admitted to St. Joseph's Hospital in Port Charlotte as a terminal cancer patient. Sometime thereafter Reverend Harold A. Ahalt, pastor of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church, Port Charlotte, in the course of his regular hospital rounds, began paying visits to Mrs. Coles, herself a Lutheran. On August 8, 1965, Mrs. Coles was made a member of Holy Trinity Lutheran Church by Reverend Ahalt. On August 11 Mrs. Coles executed the will here involved, in which she made small bequests to Appellees Heuckstaedt and Secky and bequeathed the residue of her estate, amounting to approximately 95% thereof, to the church of which she had been made a member just three days before. Mrs. Coles died 33 days later, having never been in Holy Trinity Lutheran Church.

Testamentary capacity is determined as of the moment the will was executed and requires merely the ability of the testator to understand in a general way the nature and extent of the property to be disposed of, his relation to those who would naturally claim a substantial benefit from his will, and the practical effect of his will as executed. In re Wilmott's Estate, Fla. 1953, 66 So.2d 465, 467, 40 A.L.R.2d 1399; In re Estate of Dunson, Fla.App. 1962, 141 So.2d 601, 604; In re Estate of Bailey, Fla. App. 1960, 122 So.2d 243, 245. An appellate court will not interfere with a probate court's finding as to testamentary capacity unless there is an absence of substantial competent evidence to support its finding or unless it appears that such court misapprehended the legal effect of the evidence as a whole. In re Estate of Zimmerman, Fla. 1956, 84 So.2d 560, 561; In re Wilmott's Estate, supra at 66 So.2d 467; Watts v. Newport, 1941, 149 Fla. 181, 185, 6 So.2d 829, 830; In re Estate of Bailey, supra at 122 So.2d 247.

A study of the record leads to the conclusion that there was substantial competent evidence to sustain a finding that Mrs. Coles lacked the requisite testamentary capacity at the moment she executed the will in question. She signed the document at 11:00 a.m. At 9:05 the same morning she had been given an injection of dilaudid, a narcotic, to reduce her extreme pain. Dr. Nisi, her treating physician at the time, testified that dilaudid affects the intellect and the reasoning processes and that stupefaction almost always occurs as a result of its use. He further testified that Mrs. Coles at 11:00 a.m. would still have been under the influence of the injection given to her less than two hours earlier.

A testator's use of drugs does not render him at all times incapable of possessing testamentary capacity, In re Wilmott's Estate, supra at 66 So.2d 467; In re Estate of Bailey, supra at 122 So.2d 246, and there was evidence to the effect that Mrs. Coles was alert and rational when she signed the will. However, it is the very existence of conflict in the evidence that dictates our decision. Dr. Nisi's testimony sufficiently supports a finding that Mrs. Coles did not possess testamentary capacity at 11:00 a.m. on August 11, 1965. Accordingly, we are compelled to affirm.

The order revoking the probate of the will of August 11, 1965, is affirmed.

Affirmed.

LILES, C.J., and PIERCE, J., concur.