Levin v. Levin
60 So. 3d 1116, 2011 WL 1772245, 2011 Fla. App. LEXIS 6654 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A will can be invalidated if it is the product of an "insane delusion"—a persistent, factually baseless belief held against all evidence and reason—regarding an heir, which causes the testator to make a will they would not have made but for that delusion.
Facts:
- In 1987, Shirley Levin executed a will dividing her estate equally between her children, Gail Levin and William Levin.
- Between 2001 and 2007, Gail and Shirley saw each other on at least seven documented occasions.
- Shirley developed and persistently stated the belief that she had seen her daughter Gail only once in the preceding seven to eleven years.
- Shirley communicated this belief to her son William, her attorney, and to Gail herself in an email, which Gail disputed with details.
- On May 22, 2008, Shirley executed a new will and trust that significantly reduced Gail's inheritance to a fixed sum of $350,000.
- The new will appointed William as the personal representative and trustee, and made him the recipient of the remainder of the estate, valued at over $3 million.
Procedural Posture:
- After Shirley Levin’s death, her May 22, 2008 will was admitted to probate in the trial court.
- Gail Levin (daughter) filed an objection and a counter-petition to the administration of the estate, challenging the will on grounds of undue influence, lack of testamentary capacity, and insane delusion.
- The trial court denied Gail Levin's pre-trial motion for a continuance.
- Following a trial, the court found that the will was not the product of undue influence and that Shirley Levin possessed testamentary capacity, but it made no findings regarding the insane delusion claim.
- The trial court entered a judgment upholding the will.
- Gail Levin (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to this intermediate court of appeals.
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 commit reversible error by failing to make a finding on whether a testator suffered from an insane delusion when there is evidence that the testator held a persistent, factually incorrect belief about an heir that may have influenced the terms of the will?
Opinions:
Majority - Levine, J.
Yes. A will cannot be sustained if an insane delusion regarding a beneficiary causes the testator to create a will they otherwise would not have made. An insane delusion is defined as a 'spontaneous conception and acceptance as a fact, of that which has no real existence adhered to against all evidence and reason.' In this case, there was evidence that the decedent, Shirley Levin, persisted in the false belief that her daughter Gail had only visited her once in over seven years, despite evidence to the contrary. Because the trial court failed to address whether this false belief constituted an insane delusion and whether it was the cause for reducing Gail's inheritance, it committed reversible error. The case must be remanded for the trial court to make specific findings on this issue.
Analysis:
This decision emphasizes that the doctrine of insane delusion is a distinct basis for challenging a will, separate from general testamentary capacity or undue influence. It clarifies that a testator can possess general capacity yet be subject to a specific, irrational belief that invalidates all or part of a will. The ruling mandates that trial courts must directly address and make findings on credible insane delusion claims, preventing such claims from being overlooked or improperly merged with other will contests. This reinforces protection for heirs who might be disfavored due to a testator's persistent, factually baseless, and irrational beliefs.
