Grant's Estate, In re, 1895
| Decision Date | 28 September 1960 |
| Docket Number | No. 1895,1895 |
| Citation | 123 So.2d 560 |
| Parties | In re Estate of Lottie A. Hilton GRANT, a/k/a Lottie A. Hilton, a/k/a Lottie Hilton, a/k/a Charlotte Ann Hilton, a/k/a Lottie Ann Hilton, Deceased. Ardee DOSSETT and Bell Allen, Appellants, v. Talmadge GRANT, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Ernest D. Jackson, Sr., Jacksonville, for appellants.
Harry E. Gaylord, Eustis, for appellee.
The appellants appeal from a decision of the county judge which upheld the validity of the will of Lottie A. Hilton Grant. Talmadge Grant was the chief beneficiary under the will.
Lottie A. Hilton, the deceased, died on December 5, 1958. Her closest blood relatives at the time of her death were a sister, Bell Allen, and a brother, R. D. Dossett. She had been divorced some ten years previous to her death from Talmadge Grant, the appellee, although she and Grant continued to live together as husband and wife.
A petition was filed to revoke the probate of the will and extensive testimony taken before the probate judge.
This is the second appearance of this case in this court. Originally an appeal was taken to the circuit court and a motion to dismiss the case on jurisdictional grounds was granted. The appellants made a motion to transfer the case to the Second District Court of Appeal. The circuit court did not rule on the motion to transfer but granted the motion to dismiss. This Court, on certiorari, directed the circuit court to transfer the case to this Court. 117 So.2d 865.
The decedent and Talmadge Grant were divorced November 23, 1948, and according to the testimony in this record, they continued to live as husband and wife subsequent to the divorce.
The appellants earnestly contend that they established from the testimony of a handwriting expert that the will was a forgery. The appellee adduced the testimony of the attorney who drew the will and also his secretary, both of whom testified that they saw the deceased sign the will. The trial judge on this disputed testimony ruled with the appellee and this court holds that it was within the province of the trial judge to accept the credible testimony of the two eyewitnesses over that of a handwriting expert.
The appellants state the following question:
'Whether the trial court committed reversible error in refusing to permit the petitioners to testify to prior voluntary expressions and statements made by testatrix concerning her intentions in regards to the disposition of her property upon her death; notwithstanding the executor and principal beneficiary under the will had prior thereto testified to purported statements made by the testatrix concerning her intentions to give her property to the principal beneficiary under the contested will.'
Under the testimony in this case the above question would have to be answered in the affirmative had not the appellants themselves called the executor and appellee to the stand to testify as an adverse witness. In response to questions from the counsel for the appellants, the appellee made statements that in effect would have waived the dead man's statute and permitted the brother and sister to testify to statements of the deceased that would have been beneficial to them.
Section 90.05, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., often called the dead man's statute, provides the following exception:
'* * * but this prohibition shall not extend to any transaction or communication as to which any such executor, administrator, heir at law * * * shall be examined on his own behalf, or as to which the testimony of such deceased person or lunatic shall be given in evidence.'
In the case of Mayer v. Mayer, Fla.1951, 54 So.2d 105, which was a suit between...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mathews v. Hines, 75-16-Civ-Oc.
...of a witness which is favorable to him, and to exclude the remainder which may be prejudicial. Id. at 374. Finally, In re Grants Estate, 123 So.2d 560 (2d D.C.A. Fla. 1960), was a case where the plaintiffs called the defendant, who was executor of the decedent's estate, to testify as an adv......
-
Estate of Parson
...person to testify, the Dead Man's Statute has not been waived because he is not testifying "on his own behalf." In re Estate of Grant, 123 So.2d 560 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960). Application of these elementary principles to the case at bar, however, presents some unusual Appellant maintains that: (1......
-
Disbro v. Boyce
...followed. 2 The District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District, has recently considered an allied question in In re Estate of Grant, Fla.App.1960, 123 So.2d 560. In that case it was held that where the appellants as petitioners to revoke a will called the personal representative as an......
-
Estate of Sylvestri, In the Matter of
...of Porter, 341 Pa. 476, 19 A.2d 731; Matter of Henry, 276 Pa. 511, 120 A. 454; Matter of Krugle, 134 So.2d 860 (Fla.App.); Matter of Grant, 123 So.2d 560 (Fla.App.); Matter of Miller, 201 Wis. 148, 229 N.W. 656; Matter of Johnson, 170 Wis. 436, 175 N.W. 917; Matter of Lombardo, 205 La. 261,......
-
The use of forensic document examiners in Florida will contests.
...judge noted that the circumstances of the will's execution were "superfluous or even peculiar."[3] Similarly, in In re Estate of Grant, 123 So. 2d 560, 561-62 (Fla. 2d DCA), cert. dismissed, 127 So. 2d 892 (Fla. 1961), the court favored credible eyewitness testimony over expert opinion on w......