In Re Estate of Carpenter
253 So. 2d 697 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A presumption of undue influence in a will contest does not shift the ultimate burden of proof to the will's proponent. It only shifts the burden of coming forward with a reasonable explanation for the proponent's active role; once provided, the presumption vanishes and the trier of fact decides based on the greater weight of all the evidence.
Facts:
- Coketine Bray Carpenter, a widow, had four adult children: Mary, Ben, Sam, and Bill.
- Coketine had previously expressed an intention to leave her estate equally to her four children and was particularly fond of her son Ben, who had provided her substantial assistance.
- In the summer of 1966, Coketine became terminally ill with cirrhosis of the liver from excessive alcohol consumption.
- On August 28, 1966, her daughter Mary arranged for her to be hospitalized in Daytona Beach, near Mary's home.
- On August 30, Mary telephoned her own attorney, informing him that her mother wished to have a will prepared naming Mary as the sole beneficiary.
- The attorney prepared the will as instructed by Mary and brought it to the hospital on September 1, 1966.
- Coketine Carpenter signed the will, which left her entire estate to Mary and disinherited her three sons. The sons were not made aware of the will's existence.
- Coketine Carpenter died four days later, on September 5, 1966.
Procedural Posture:
- Mary Redman Carpenter, the proponent, offered the will for probate in the County Judge's Court of Orange County (trial court).
- Ben and William Carpenter, the contestants, opposed the probate, alleging the will was procured by undue influence.
- The County Judge's Court found that undue influence existed, invalidated the will, and denied its probate.
- Mary Carpenter, as appellant, appealed the decision to the District Court of Appeal, Fourth District.
- The District Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order, holding that the presumption of undue influence was rebutted and the remaining evidence was insufficient to find undue influence.
- Ben and William Carpenter, as petitioners, sought review of the appellate court's decision from the Supreme Court of Florida.
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 in a will contest shift the ultimate burden of proof to the will's proponent to disprove undue influence, or does it only shift the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McCain
No. A presumption of undue influence does not shift the ultimate burden of proof to the will's proponent to disprove undue influence; it only shifts the burden of coming forward with a reasonable explanation. The court clarified that while prior Florida cases had incorrectly shifted the entire burden of proof, the correct rule is that a presumption only shifts the burden of producing evidence. Shifting the ultimate burden of proof would make the presumption nearly impossible to overcome, as it is extremely difficult to disprove a negative allegation like undue influence. Once the proponent offers a reasonable explanation for their role, the presumption vanishes. However, the facts that initially raised the presumption (e.g., a confidential relationship and active procurement) remain as circumstantial evidence from which a trier of fact may still permissibly infer that undue influence occurred.
Analysis:
This decision harmonized Florida's law on undue influence with the general rule governing the effect of legal presumptions, resolving a conflict in prior case law. By clarifying that the ultimate burden of proof remains on the will contestant, the court balanced the protection of vulnerable testators with the strong public policy of honoring a testator's intent as expressed in a duly executed will. The ruling prevents the presumption from becoming 'virtually conclusive' and preserves the trial judge's role in weighing all evidence. For future cases, it establishes a clear procedural framework: the contestant must prove their case, but a proponent facing a presumption must provide a reasonable explanation or risk losing.
