Demetra F. Blinn v. Patricia A. Carlman and Brian Blinn
159 So. 3d 390, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 3881, 2015 WL 1223665 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A will may be invalidated for undue influence when circumstantial evidence demonstrates that a beneficiary's over-persuasion, coercion, or artful contrivances destroyed the free will of a susceptible testator. Such influence can be inferred from factors indicating active procurement of the will, especially when it represents a radical departure from a prior estate plan.
Facts:
- Richard Blinn's mental health began deteriorating as early as 2005, and he suffered from progressive dementia which worsened over time.
- In 2006, Blinn executed a will devising his entire estate to his daughter, Patty, with his granddaughter as the alternate, which was consistent with his previous estate plans.
- In August 2007, Blinn, then almost 82 years old, married the appellant, his fourth wife.
- After the 2007 marriage, the appellant began to alienate Blinn from his children, controlled the couple's finances, and was inadvertently recorded on a voicemail screaming at Blinn that his daughter was stealing from him.
- On April 2, 2008, Blinn executed a new will that completely disinherited his children and devised his entire estate to the appellant.
- The 2008 will was prepared by a lawyer who had no prior contact with Blinn and who testified he received instructions from a referring lawyer; the referring lawyer denied giving any instructions.
- The referring lawyer was a social friend of the appellant and had received a 'loan' from her that was never repaid.
- In June 2011, a circuit court determined that Blinn was totally incapacitated and appointed his daughter as his plenary guardian.
Procedural Posture:
- The decedent's daughter, Patty, challenged the validity of the April 2, 2008 will in the Florida probate court.
- The probate court conducted a trial and entered a final judgment invalidating the 2008 will, finding it was the product of undue influence.
- The appellant, who was the decedent's fourth wife and the sole beneficiary under the 2008 will, appealed the probate court's judgment to the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a will the product of undue influence when the testator, who suffered from declining mental capacity, was isolated from his family by a new beneficiary and the will was executed under suspicious circumstances that drastically altered a long-standing estate plan?
Opinions:
Majority - Gross, J.
Yes. A will is the product of undue influence where substantial competent evidence shows the testator's free will was destroyed by the beneficiary's actions. The court found overwhelming evidence of undue influence based on Blinn's susceptibility due to his progressive dementia and the appellant's actions. The appellant actively preyed on Blinn's paranoia to alienate him from his children, who he previously had close relationships with. The circumstances surrounding the 2008 will's creation were highly suspicious, with conflicting testimony from the two lawyers involved, suggesting the appellant was the driving force behind its creation. This will was a complete transformation of Blinn's prior, consistent estate plan. The court also gave significant weight to an accidentally recorded voicemail, which provided a rare, direct glimpse into the appellant's abusive and manipulative behavior toward the decedent.
Analysis:
This decision serves as a classic application of the undue influence doctrine, emphasizing that courts will look past the formalities of a will's execution to the substantive reality of the testator's condition and relationships. It reinforces the principle that a combination of circumstantial evidence, including a testator's vulnerability, a beneficiary's isolating and manipulative behavior, and suspicious circumstances surrounding the will's creation, can be sufficient to invalidate a will. The case highlights the significance of a drastic change in an estate plan as a major red flag for undue influence. It also demonstrates how powerful a single piece of direct evidence, like the inadvertent voicemail, can be in corroborating a pattern of coercive behavior.
