In Re Estate of Virginia E. Murphy
184 So. 3d 1221 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In cases of undue influence, the doctrine of dependent relative revocation creates a rebuttable presumption that a testator's revocation of a prior will is conditioned on the validity of a subsequent will. Courts must apply a broad similarity test between the wills and may consider extrinsic evidence to determine the testator's intent, shifting the burden of proof to the party opposing the doctrine's application.
Facts:
- Virginia E. Murphy, a 107-year-old widow with a multi-million dollar estate and no direct descendants, executed a series of wills over several years.
- Her longtime attorney, Jack S. Carey, and his legal assistant, Gloria DuBois, drafted these wills.
- In her earlier wills (1989-1992), Murphy's second cousin, Jacqueline Rocke, and Northwestern University's medical school were named as significant beneficiaries, with Rocke at one point being a residuary devisee.
- In a February 1992 will, the residuary estate was divided equally among Rocke, Carey, DuBois, and an accountant, George Tornwall.
- In a series of subsequent wills executed between August 1992 and February 1994, Rocke was removed as a residuary devisee, and the share of the residuary estate left to Carey and DuBois increased.
- During this period, Mrs. Murphy's health and mental acuity were in decline.
- Her final will, dated February 2, 1994, left the bulk of her residuary estate to Carey, DuBois, and Tornwall (who had since died).
- Mrs. Murphy had a close relationship with Rocke but did not know the 48 distant relatives who were later identified as her intestate heirs.
Procedural Posture:
- Upon Virginia Murphy's death, Jack S. Carey submitted her 1994 will to the probate court for administration.
- Jacqueline Rocke, a beneficiary under prior wills, filed an objection to the 1994 will's residuary clause, alleging undue influence by Carey and his assistant.
- The probate court found undue influence, voided the residuary clause, but upheld the will's revocation of all prior wills, ordering the residuary estate to pass by intestate succession.
- Carey and his assistant appealed to the Florida Second District Court of Appeal, and Rocke cross-appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed the undue influence finding but remanded for the probate court to determine if dependent relative revocation applied.
- On remand, the probate court, without a new hearing, ruled that the doctrine did not apply and again ordered the estate to pass via intestacy.
- After identifying 48 intestate heirs, the probate court entered a Final Order Determining Beneficiaries, from which Rocke initiated the present appeal to the Florida Second 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:
Under the doctrine of dependent relative revocation, must a court revive a prior will's residuary devise when a subsequent will's residuary clause is found void due to undue influence, and the series of wills demonstrates a consistent testamentary plan contrary to intestacy?
Opinions:
Majority - Lucas, Judge.
Yes. When a will's residuary clause is voided for undue influence, the doctrine of dependent relative revocation applies to revive a prior, similar will to prevent the estate from passing through intestacy against the testator's presumed intent. The court found that the probate court erred by failing to apply the presumption of dependent relative revocation. The doctrine's purpose is to avoid intestacy, which is especially important when a testator, like Mrs. Murphy, has consistently created wills to direct the disposition of her property. The court established that in undue influence cases, a 'broad similarity' test is appropriate for comparing wills, and extrinsic evidence is admissible to ascertain the testator's true intent. Mrs. Murphy's series of wills showed a consistent pattern and a clear preference for testacy, thus triggering the presumption. Once triggered, the burden shifted to the opponents (the intestate heirs) to prove that Mrs. Murphy intended to revoke all prior wills regardless of the 1994 will's validity, a burden they failed to meet. Therefore, the revocation clause of the 1994 will was invalidated along with the tainted residuary clause, and the court revived the last untainted residuary devise from the February 1992 will, making Ms. Rocke the sole residuary beneficiary.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the application of dependent relative revocation (DRR) in Florida, particularly in the context of undue influence. By endorsing a 'broad similarity' test and permitting extrinsic evidence, the court makes it easier to invoke DRR, thereby strengthening the legal preference for testacy over intestacy. The ruling creates a conflict with the Fifth District's decision in Wehrheim, which barred extrinsic evidence, setting the stage for the Florida Supreme Court to resolve the issue. The case establishes a clear, burden-shifting framework that protects a testator's intent from being thwarted by both undue influence and the unintended consequence of intestacy.
Unlock the full brief for In Re Estate of Virginia E. Murphy