Bitetzakis v. Bitetzakis
264 So. 3d 297 (2019)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a will to be valid, it must be executed in strict compliance with statutory formalities, including the requirement that the testator signs the will with the present intent for that signature to be the final act of assent.
Facts:
- On September 26, 2013, George Bitetzakis gathered at his home with his wife, Ana, and two witnesses, Thomas Rivera and Santiago Alequin, to execute his will.
- At George's request, Rivera and Alequin signed the will as witnesses.
- Following the witnesses, George began to sign the will on the designated signature line.
- His wife, Ana, mistakenly believing a notary was required, interrupted him and told him to stop signing.
- George complied, having written only his first name, 'George,' on the signature line.
- Ana Bitetzakis testified that her husband normally signed documents with his full name.
- The next day, George went to a notary and signed a separate document, an 'Affidavit of Subscribing Witnesses,' but did not bring or sign the will itself.
- The two witnesses, Rivera and Alequin, did not sign the self-proof affidavit that George had notarized.
Procedural Posture:
- The decedent's grandson, acting as personal representative, petitioned the Florida probate court to admit the decedent's 2013 will to probate.
- The decedent's daughter, Alice Bitetzakis, filed a response challenging the petition, arguing the will was not executed in compliance with statutory formalities.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the probate court found that the decedent's intent was clear and that the will was validly signed, admitting it to probate.
- Alice Bitetzakis, as appellant, appealed the probate court's order to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a partially completed signature on a will, which the testator stopped writing midway due to a mistaken belief and did not intend to be his final mark, satisfy the statutory signature requirement for a valid execution of a will under Florida law?
Opinions:
Majority - Northcutt, Judge.
No. A partially completed signature that the testator did not intend to serve as their final assent does not satisfy the statutory requirement for a will to be signed at the end. Although the primary consideration in construing a will is the testator's intent, that intent can only be effectuated if the will is validly executed in strict compliance with the statutory formalities. Florida Statute § 732.502(1)(a) dictates that the testator must sign the will at the end. Here, the decedent wrote something less than his full customary signature. While a 'mark' can suffice as a signature, it must be made with the intent that it constitute the signature and evidence assent to the will. The evidence here, particularly the fact that the decedent intentionally stopped signing and later tried to ratify the will with a notary, dispels any notion that he intended for his first name alone to serve as his signature and final assent to the document.
Analysis:
This case reaffirms the doctrine of strict compliance for will formalities in Florida, emphasizing that testamentary intent cannot cure a defect in execution. The court's analysis clarifies that even an act that could potentially serve as a signature (such as a mark or a partial name) is invalid without the testator's concurrent intent for it to be their final, binding act of assent. This decision serves as a stark reminder to legal practitioners and the public that errors during the will execution ceremony can invalidate the entire instrument, regardless of how clearly the testator's wishes are expressed. It narrows the application of the 'signature by mark' doctrine to situations where intent for the mark to be a final signature is affirmatively shown.
