Fanelli's Estate, In re
| Decision Date | 20 August 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75--392,75--392 |
| Citation | 336 So.2d 631 |
| Parties | In re ESTATE of Mary Jo FANELLI, Deceased. Mary Ann BONGIORNO, Appellant, v. Mary Virginia FANELLI, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Michael L. Kinney of Rood & Kinney, and Edward M. Waller, Jr. of Fowler, White, Gillen, Boggs, Villareal & Banker, Tampa, for appellant.
T. M. Tucker of Harrison, Greene, Mann, Rowe & Stanton, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
Mary Ann Bongiorno, the sole beneficiary under the will of Mary Jo Fanelli, appeals a final judgment entered pursuant to a jury verdict finding that testatrix did not have testamentary capacity at the time she executed her will. The circuit court, as a court of probate, declared the purported will to be null and void and of no force and effect and ordered that it be set aside.
The record reflects that the will was executed on February 8, 1973, and that testatrix died a few hours later by suicide due to acute nembutal intoxication. On February 14, 1973, the will was admitted to probate. On September 25, 1973, testatrix's mother, Mary Virginia Fanelli, filed a petition for revocation of probate of the will and requested trial by jury. Appellant Bongiorno filed a motion to strike the request, and the court denied this motion, finding that permitting a jury trial in this case would be discretionary.
Appellant contends that the lower court committed reversible error in submitting the case to a jury. She argues that there is no provision in the constitution or statutes of Florida which requires a jury trial in probate matters and, in fact, § 732.30(2) F.S. 1973 () mandates that the judge shall decide whether or not to revoke probate. Former subsection 732.30(2) provided:
732.30 Revocation of Probate
(2) Citation to appear and defend shall be served upon the personal representative; and the circuit judge Shall, upon the issues made and the proof adduced, confirm or revoke the probate according to the law and justice of the case. (Emphasis added)
Like probate matters, equity cases were not subject to jury trials at common law. The courts of Florida have held, however, that the submission of a factual question in an equity case to a jury is in the discretion of the court. Berg v. New York Life Insurance Company, Fla.1956, 88 So.2d 915; Vivian Greene, Inc. v. Levine, Fla.App.3d 1973, 287 So.2d 135. Also, in revocation of probation proceedings and juvenile delinquency proceedings the courts have said that a trial judge would have authority to use an advisory jury to determine a disputed issue of fact, although not required to do so. Singletary v. State, Fla.App.4th 1974, 290 So.2d 116; McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 1971, 403 U.S. 528, 91 S.Ct. 1976, 29 L.Ed.2d 647.
While a party was not entitled as a matter of right to a jury trial in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rodriguez v. Travelers Ins. Co., 78-688
...be awarded under the statute only "when the insurer refuses or fails to negotiate in good faith." Reliance Ins. Co. v. Kilby, supra, at 336 So.2d 631; Catches v. Government Employees Ins. Co., supra, at 318 So.2d 553. 7 In our view, these statements are completely contrary to an unbroken li......
-
Vista Centre Venture v. Unlike Anything, Inc.
...before an advisory jury. In Re Wartels' Estate, 338 So.2d 48 (Fla. 3d DCA1976) affirmed, 357 So.2d 708 (Fla.1978); In Re Fanelli's Estate, 336 So.2d 631 (Fla. 2d DCA1976); Gulf Life Insurance Company v. Urquiaga, 251 So.2d 904 (Fla. 2d DCA1971). Where the parties have effectively waived the......
-
Allen v. Dutton's Estate
...issue. Probate matters were never submitted to jury trials at common law, or under the prior probate law of Florida. Estate of Fanelli, 336 So.2d 631 (Fla.2d DCA 1976); In Re Duval's Estate, 174 So.2d 580 (Fla.2d DCA The "new" Florida probate code which became effective January 1, 1976 make......
-
The use of forensic document examiners in Florida will contests.
...5th DCA), rev. denied, 402 So.2d 609 (Fla. 1981), although the court may impanel a jury for advisory purposes, In re Estate of Fanelli, 336 So. 2d 631, 632 (Fla. 2d DCA 1976). Therefore, the practitioner should consider the presiding judge's view of expert witnesses. A judge, as opposed to ......