McClintock's Estate, In re, 78-2234
| Decision Date | 17 August 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 78-2234,78-2234 |
| Parties | In re ESTATE OF Mary Jane McCLINTOCK. Anita F. WOLGAST, Appellant, v. Jack S. CAREY, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Robert P. Kalle, St. Petersburg, for appellant.
Philip W. Dann of Baird, Robinson & Dann, St. Petersburg, for appellee.
This is an appeal from an order admitting a will to probate. In the trial court, appellant beneficiary under a prior will contested appellee's petition for administration. The issues on appeal are undue influence and incorrect application of the dead man's statute, Section 90.05, Florida Statutes (1977).
On May 1, 1977, Mary Jane McClintock gave oral instructions to Mary Thompson as to the contents of her new will. Mary Thompson, her former sister-in-law, was to be the residuary beneficiary. The will was then prepared by Mary Thompson's personal attorney, Jack S. Carey, who included himself as personal representative. On June 16, 1977, the will was presented to Mary Jane McClintock by Carey and Thompson. Since Ms. McClintock had misplaced her glasses, Carey read the will to her. He asked her to identify the persons mentioned in the will and concluded that she had the mental capacity to execute a will. At the time of the execution of the will, Ms. McClintock was 82 years old and was living in a nursing home, having had several strokes.
In the trial, the appellant called Mary Thompson as an adverse witness seeking to interrogate her concerning communications and transactions with Ms. McClintock. The appellee objected, citing the dead man's statute as a bar to her testifying. The court sustained the objection but permitted counsel to perfect a proffer by obtaining her answers to the disputed questions.
The case of In re Carpenter's Estate, 253 So.2d 697 (Fla.1971) lists the criteria for the determination of undue influence. The proffered testimony bore significantly on several of these criteria. The application then of the dead man's statute, Section 90.05, Florida Statutes (1977), becomes the fulcrum issue. The trial court's ruling denied the appellant the opportunity to adduce testimony from a material witness on the issue of undue influence.
In Disbro v. Boyce, 124 So.2d 756 (Fla.3d DCA 1960), the rationale of the dead man's statute is reviewed. It would preclude an heir, as Mary Thompson, from testifying on her own behalf regarding her transactions or communications with the testatrix. Such...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estate of Hatcher, In re
...Heebner v. Summerlin, 372 So.2d 518 (Fla. 4th DCA 1979). The parties to this lawsuit are not immune from testifying. In Re Estate of McClintock, 374 So.2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA), dismissed, 378 So.2d 346 (Fla.1979). Thus, on remand, the interested parties herein may be called to testify and are c......
-
Estate of Parson
...That is, such an adverse witness may not refuse to testify; the statute does not create immunity from testifying. In re Estate of McClintock, 374 So.2d 93 (Fla. 2d DCA 1979). As we said, in Heebner v. Summerlin, 372 So.2d 518, 519 (Fla. 4th DCA The legislative intent in passing the Dead Man......
- Carey v. Wolgast
- McClintock, In re Estate of
-
Dead man talking - requiem for summary judgment under Florida's "dead man's" statute.
...So. 2d 310,314 (Fla. 5th D.C.A. 2001). (5) Parson v. Hendley, 416 So. 2d 513 (Fla. 4th D.C.A. 1962), citing In re: Estate of McClintock, 374 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 2d D.C.A. (6) There is a paucity of Florida cases on this exception. These few decisions--e.g., Viscito v. Fred S. Carbon Co., Inc., 6......