Tarsagian v. Watt
402 So. 2d 471 (1981)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The confidential relationship between a husband and wife is not, by itself, a basis for triggering a presumption of undue influence in a will contest. A spouse's minimal participation in the logistical arrangements for the execution of a will does not constitute undue influence sufficient to invalidate it.
Facts:
- Sarah Tarsagian and Andrew Tarsagian met in 1969.
- In 1972, after his first wife's death, Andrew, then 77, moved in with Sarah, then 62, and she cared for him during his illnesses.
- In early 1977, Andrew was seriously injured in a car accident and was diagnosed with leukemia while hospitalized.
- One month after his discharge from the hospital, Andrew and Sarah were married.
- Shortly after their marriage, Andrew executed a will leaving his estate to Sarah.
- Sarah's involvement with the will was limited to accompanying Andrew to the lawyer's office, waiting in the reception area, and later placing the will in her safe deposit box, which they both used.
- Sarah had played no role in Andrew's financial affairs during their relationship.
- Andrew died nearly two years after the will was executed.
Procedural Posture:
- Flora Watt and Mary Pagel, the decedent's children, filed suit against Sarah Tarsagian in a Florida trial court.
- The suit sought to annul the marriage between Andrew and Sarah Tarsagian and to revoke the probate of Andrew's will.
- The trial court entered a final judgment refusing to annul the marriage but revoking the probate of the will on the grounds of undue influence.
- Sarah Tarsagian, as appellant, appealed the trial court's ruling revoking the will to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
- Flora Watt and Mary Pagel, as appellees, cross-appealed the trial court's ruling upholding the marriage.
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 surviving spouse exert undue influence sufficient to invalidate a will by accompanying the testator to a lawyer's office, waiting outside during the consultation, and storing the executed will, particularly when the spouse provided care for the testator but was not involved in their financial affairs?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Daniel S. Pearson
No. A surviving spouse's minimal activities related to the creation of a will do not amount to undue influence. A testator's intent to bequeath their estate to a second spouse, even to the disappointment of children from a prior marriage, must be respected unless there is significant evidence showing the testator was precluded from exercising their free will. The court reasoned that a testator has the right to dispose of their property as they choose. The evidence presented was 'glaringly insufficient' to show that Sarah overrode Andrew's free will. Merely accompanying him to a lawyer's office and providing for the will's safekeeping are not acts of undue influence. The court also noted, citing 'Goertner v. Gardiner,' that the confidential relationship between spouses is exempt from the rule that would otherwise create a presumption of undue influence, as such a presumption would arise in nearly every case where one spouse is a substantial beneficiary.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal principle of testamentary freedom, protecting a testator's right to dispose of their property, especially in the context of a so-called 'December marriage.' It establishes that ordinary spousal support activities related to the creation of a will do not constitute the 'active procurement' necessary to prove undue influence. The case significantly clarifies that the confidential relationship inherent in a marriage does not trigger the 'In re Estate of Carpenter' presumption of undue influence, thereby preventing the routine invalidation of wills that favor a surviving spouse over other family members.
