In re Estate of Kuhn
286 So. 2d 276, 1973 Fla. App. LEXIS 6298 (1973)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A will found torn or mutilated in the testator's possession after their death is presumed to have been torn by the testator with the intent to revoke it. This presumption can only be rebutted by substantial evidence demonstrating a contrary intent at the time of the act.
Facts:
- In 1963, Julia Kuhn executed a will leaving her entire estate to her niece, Helen Bakos.
- Kuhn had an adopted daughter, Elizabeth Vargo, but they had no personal contact from 1950 until Kuhn's death in 1971.
- Helen Bakos was the closest person to Kuhn during the last years of her life and had previously lived with her.
- After Kuhn's death in 1971, Bakos found the 1963 will in a bureau drawer among other important papers.
- The will had been torn in two pieces from top to bottom, directly through Kuhn's signature.
- There was no direct evidence regarding when, how, or by whom the will was torn, nor any evidence of Kuhn's specific intent at the time of the tearing.
Procedural Posture:
- Helen Bakos offered Julia Kuhn's torn will for probate in the trial court.
- After a hearing with extensive testimony, the trial judge admitted the will to probate, ruling that the evidence successfully rebutted the presumption of revocation.
- Elizabeth Vargo, the decedent's adopted daughter and potential heir if the will is invalid, appealed the trial court's order to the intermediate appellate court.
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 sufficient evidence exist to rebut the legal presumption that a will, found torn through the signature in the decedent's possession after her death, was torn with the intent to revoke it?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. When a will is found torn in the testator's possession, a strong legal presumption arises that it was torn with the intent to revoke it, and the evidence presented was insufficient to rebut this presumption. The court reasoned that the trial judge's findings were based on ambiguous circumstantial evidence that could be interpreted in multiple ways. For example, the fact that the torn pieces were kept could suggest an accident, but it could equally suggest a deliberate act of revocation. The court emphasized a total absence of substantial evidence regarding the decedent's state of mind at or near the time the will was torn. Speculation based on the decedent's relationships or general state of mind is not substantial enough to overcome the strong presumption of revocatory intent.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high evidentiary bar required to overcome the common law presumption of revocation for a mutilated will. It clarifies that ambiguous circumstantial evidence, such as the testator's relationships or the mere preservation of the torn pieces, is insufficient to meet the 'substantial evidence' standard. The ruling guides lower courts to require more direct and substantial proof of the testator's intent at the time of the physical act, thereby promoting certainty in probate proceedings and discouraging litigation based on speculation about the deceased's motives.
Unlock the full brief for In re Estate of Kuhn