Diaz v. Ashworth
2007 WL 1484550, 963 So. 2d 731 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A presumption of undue influence, which arises when a substantial beneficiary in a confidential relationship is active in procuring a will, may be rebutted. The will can be upheld if the proponent proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the testator was competent and the will was not the product of undue influence.
Facts:
- Jorge Mesa and his partner, Silvio Segarra, both suffered from AIDS. Segarra transferred title of their shared home to both of them with rights of survivorship, making it Mesa's sole significant asset after Segarra's death.
- Initially, Mesa prepared a will naming his father's sister-in-law as his beneficiary.
- Francisco Gerardo Diaz, a Catholic priest, began providing spiritual counseling to Mesa. After Segarra's death in 1999, Diaz became more involved in Mesa's life, and Mesa executed a new will naming Diaz as the sole beneficiary.
- Subsequently, the relationship between Mesa and Diaz cooled, and Mesa's neighbors, including Frank Ashworth, began helping him with chores and medical appointments.
- In June 2003, Mesa's health declined significantly, leading to hospitalization. His medical records described him as 'awake, alert and oriented.'
- On July 9, 2003, while in a nursing center, Mesa expressed a desire to make a new will to Ashworth's wife.
- On July 10, 2003, the Ashworths took Mesa from the nursing center to his doctor, who noted Mesa was competent to make the decision to enter hospice care, and then to an attorney recommended by Ashworth.
- At the attorney's office, Mesa executed a new will naming Frank Ashworth as his sole beneficiary. Mesa died eighteen days later, on July 28, 2003.
Procedural Posture:
- Francisco Gerardo Diaz filed a complaint in the trial court challenging the probate of Jorge Mesa's will.
- The complaint alleged that Mesa lacked testamentary capacity and was under the undue influence of the beneficiary, Frank Ashworth.
- Following a bench trial, the trial court entered a final judgment dismissing Diaz's complaint and upholding the will.
- Diaz, as appellant, appealed the trial court's judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. Ashworth is the appellee.
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 presumption of undue influence, raised by a beneficiary's active role in procuring a will from an ailing testator, invalidate that will when the proponent provides a reasonable explanation and a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates the testator possessed testamentary capacity and was not unduly influenced?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A presumption of undue influence does not automatically invalidate a will if the will's proponent can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the testator acted freely and possessed testamentary capacity. The court affirmed the trial court's finding that Mesa was competent and not unduly influenced when he executed the will. The court applied the three-part test for testamentary capacity, finding Mesa understood: (1) the nature of his property, (2) his relation to potential beneficiaries, and (3) the effect of his will. This was supported by hospital records and his doctor's testimony regarding his competence to make end-of-life decisions on the very day the will was signed. While Diaz successfully raised a presumption of undue influence under the Carpenter test by showing Ashworth's confidential relationship and active procurement of the will, the burden shifted to Ashworth. The court found Ashworth met his burden of proving the will was not the product of undue influence, as the evidence showed Mesa was capable of making his own decisions and his choice was consistent with his pattern of naming non-relatives as beneficiaries.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the modern application of the undue influence doctrine in Florida, particularly the burden-shifting framework established in In re Estate of Carpenter and modified by statute. It demonstrates that successfully raising a presumption of undue influence is not fatal to a will's validity. The decision reinforces that the ultimate inquiry is the testator's intent and capacity, and a will proponent can overcome suspicious circumstances by presenting a preponderance of evidence showing the testator acted freely. This holding protects testamentary freedom, ensuring that even a physically weak testator's clear wishes are honored, provided their mental competence is established.
