Shriners Hospitals for Crippled Children v. Zrillic
563 So.2d 64, 1990 WL 74588 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state mortmain statute that invalidates a charitable devise if the testator dies within six months of executing the will violates the state constitution's property rights and the equal protection clauses of both the state and federal constitutions.
Facts:
- Lorraine E. Romans had a daughter, Lorraine E. Zrillic, for whom Romans had previously expended substantial sums for education and other needs.
- Romans believed her daughter had not shown her affection or gratitude for at least five years preceding the creation of her will.
- On May 5, 1986, Romans executed her Last Will and Testament.
- The will bequeathed specific family antiques to Zrillic but expressly stated an intention to limit her inheritance further.
- The will devised the entire residuary estate to the Shriners Hospitals for Crippled Children.
- Romans died from a lingering illness on July 19, 1986, which was less than six months after she executed the will.
Procedural Posture:
- After Lorraine Romans' will was admitted to probate, her daughter, Lorraine Zrillic, petitioned the Circuit Court of Seminole County (trial court) to avoid the charitable devise to Shriners Hospitals under section 732.803.
- Shriners Hospitals and the Estate of Romans asserted as affirmative defenses that Zrillic lacked standing and that section 732.803 was unconstitutional.
- The trial court ruled that Zrillic had standing but found that section 732.803 was unconstitutional.
- Zrillic, as appellant, appealed the trial court's ruling on the statute's constitutionality to the Florida Fifth District Court of Appeal.
- The Estate of Romans, as cross-appellant, appealed the ruling on Zrillic's standing.
- The Fifth District Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's decision on standing but reversed on the constitutional issue, holding that section 732.803 was constitutional.
- Shriners Hospitals and the Estate of Romans then petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida for review.
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 Florida's mortmain statute, section 732.803, which restricts charitable devises made within six months of death, violate the property rights and equal protection guarantees of the Florida and United States Constitutions?
Opinions:
Majority - Barkett, J.
Yes, the statute is unconstitutional. The right to devise property is a constitutionally protected property right under Article I, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution, and section 732.803 is not reasonably necessary to achieve a compelling state interest. The statute also violates equal protection because its classifications are not rationally related to a legitimate state objective. The statute is underinclusive because it fails to protect testators from undue influence by non-charitable parties, such as greedy relatives or acquaintances. It is also overinclusive because it invalidates many valid, intentional bequests where no undue influence occurred and where family members were not in need of protection. The arbitrary six-month timeframe has no rational basis, and the statute ultimately defeats the testator's express intent without a sufficient justification.
Concurring in result - Grimes, J.
Yes, the statute is unconstitutional, but only on equal protection grounds. The majority is correct that the statute fails the rational basis test. However, the Court should not have overruled its precedent in Taylor v. Payne to hold that the right to devise property is a constitutional right. That right is a creature of statute, and the legislature has the authority to regulate it.
Concurring in result, dissenting in part - McDonald, J.
No, the statute is constitutional, but the daughter lacks standing to challenge the charitable gift. The court should adhere to its precedent in Taylor v. Payne, which held the legislature has the power to regulate testamentary dispositions. However, Zrillic should not have standing because the testator's will clearly and unequivocally expressed an intent to limit her inheritance. Allowing a disfavored heir to invalidate a charitable bequest frustrates the testator's intent, which should be paramount. The charitable gift to Shriners Hospitals should be upheld because the only person who could contest it, Zrillic, was effectively disinherited from the residuary estate.
Analysis:
This decision invalidated Florida's mortmain statute, removing a significant obstacle to deathbed charitable giving and strengthening the principle of testamentary freedom. By elevating the right to devise property to a constitutional right, the court departed from long-standing precedent that treated it as a statutory privilege, thereby limiting the legislature's power to regulate wills and estates. The ruling makes it more difficult for lineal descendants to challenge a will solely on the basis of a recent charitable bequest, shifting the focus to traditional grounds like undue influence or incapacity. It also reflects a modern jurisprudential trend away from protecting heirs at the expense of a testator's clearly expressed charitable intent.
