Burkhart v. Union Trust National Bank
204 So. 2d 737, 1967 Fla. App. LEXIS 4149 (1967)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court's factual finding regarding a testator's testamentary capacity will be upheld on appeal if it is supported by competent, substantial evidence, even if there is conflicting testimony. An appellate court will not re-weigh the evidence or substitute its judgment for that of the trial judge who personally heard the witnesses.
Facts:
- Relatives of John Wesley Burkhart claimed he began showing signs of senility, such as poor personal hygiene and disorientation, as early as 1956.
- In August 1959, Burkhart's wife died in Ohio; acquaintances who interacted with him there around that time found him to be mentally normal.
- On October 7, 1959, while in Ohio, Burkhart executed a will drafted by a local attorney who testified that Burkhart was lucid, knew what he was talking about, and understood the terms of the will.
- The will disinherited his relatives and made bequests to charitable organizations in Morrow County, Ohio, a place where Burkhart had long-standing ties.
- Burkhart's neighbors in Florida, where he lived, also found him to be normal in appearance and mentality around the time the will was executed.
- In February 1960, approximately four months after signing the will, a Florida court formally adjudged Burkhart incompetent due to cerebral arteriosclerosis with senility.
- Despite the adjudication of incompetency, Burkhart continued to live at home and travel alone for a period before entering a rest home in 1962.
- John Wesley Burkhart died on December 9, 1963, at the approximate age of eighty-one.
Procedural Posture:
- The last will and testament of John Wesley Burkhart was admitted to probate by order of the County Judge of Pinellas County, a court of first instance.
- Burkhart's relatives filed a petition in the same court to revoke the probate of the will, alleging he lacked testamentary capacity.
- After a hearing with extensive testimony, the County Judge entered a final order denying the petition for revocation and upholding the will.
- The relatives, as appellants, appealed the County Judge'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 trial court's finding of testamentary capacity constitute reversible error when it is based on conflicting evidence, but supported by competent, substantial testimony from witnesses who observed the testator at the time the will was executed?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a trial court's finding of testamentary capacity does not constitute reversible error if supported by competent, substantial evidence, even in the face of conflicting testimony. The role of an appellate court is not to re-weigh the evidence or determine witness credibility, as that is the exclusive province of the trial judge. In this case, testimony from the drafting attorney, neighbors, and acquaintances provided competent, substantial evidence that Burkhart was lucid and possessed the required capacity on the specific day he executed his will. This evidence was sufficient to support the trial judge's finding, despite contrary testimony from relatives and an expert psychiatrist, and a later adjudication of incompetency. Therefore, the trial court's decision to uphold the will was not an abuse of discretion and must be affirmed.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high degree of deference appellate courts afford to trial court findings of fact, especially when witness credibility is determinative. It establishes that testamentary capacity is a fact-specific inquiry focused on the testator's mental state at the precise moment of the will's execution, not their general condition before or after. The decision clarifies that even a person suffering from significant mental decline, such as senility, can be found to have validly executed a will during a 'lucid interval.' This precedent makes it more difficult to overturn a will on capacity grounds on appeal if there was any credible evidence presented at trial supporting the testator's lucidity at the time of signing.
