Wehrheim v. GOLDEN POND ASSISTED LIVING
2005 WL 1537448, 905 So. 2d 1002, 2005 Fla. App. LEXIS 10133 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A will's revocation clause is not automatically invalid simply because other dispositive provisions of the will are procured by undue influence. Under Florida's partial invalidity statute, if a revocation clause is separable from the tainted parts and was not itself a product of undue influence, it can be held valid.
Facts:
- Dorothy Wehrheim resided at the Golden Pond Assisted Living Facility.
- An administrator at Golden Pond contacted Rebecca Fierle, a geriatric care manager, to assist Dorothy with her personal affairs.
- Fierle met with Dorothy, reviewed her previous will, and suggested she leave her estate to a charity.
- Fierle arranged for the preparation of a new will, which Dorothy signed on July 23, 2002.
- The 2002 will named Golden Pond as the primary beneficiary, named Fierle as the personal representative, and contained a clause revoking all prior wills.
- Dorothy's children, the Wehrheims, were not named as beneficiaries in the 2002 will.
- Dorothy had also executed wills in 1998, 1999, and 2000, none of which named her children as primary beneficiaries.
Procedural Posture:
- After Dorothy Wehrheim's death, her children (the Wehrheims) petitioned the probate court to deny admission of the 2002 will to probate, alleging undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity.
- Golden Pond Assisted Living Facility filed a competing petition for formal administration of the 2002 will.
- Golden Pond moved for summary judgment, arguing the Wehrheims lacked standing as 'interested persons' because they were also excluded from Dorothy's prior wills and thus would not inherit even if the 2002 will were invalidated.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Golden Pond.
- The Wehrheims, as appellants, appealed the trial court's final summary judgment to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.
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 Florida law, is a will's revocation clause necessarily invalid if the will's other dispositive provisions are alleged to be the product of undue influence?
Opinions:
Majority - Sawaya, J.
No, a will's revocation clause is not necessarily invalid if other provisions are the product of undue influence. Under Florida Statute § 732.5165, parts of a will procured by undue influence are void, but the remainder of the will can be valid if it is separable and not otherwise invalid. The court reasoned that it is possible for undue influence to be limited to particular aspects of a new will, such as the dispositive provisions, but not the testator's decision to make a new will and revoke prior ones. Whether the alleged undue influence was pervasive enough to invalidate the entire will, including the revocation clause, is a question of fact that cannot be resolved on summary judgment. If the Wehrheims can prove that the revocation clause was valid and unconditional (not tainted by undue influence), it would revoke the prior wills, lead to intestacy, and give them standing as interested persons to challenge the dispositive provisions of the 2002 will.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the interaction between Florida's partial invalidity statute for wills and the doctrine of dependent relative revocation. It establishes a pathway for heirs who were disinherited in multiple wills to gain standing by arguing for the severability of a revocation clause from provisions tainted by undue influence. The ruling emphasizes that summary judgment is inappropriate in will contests where factual disputes exist regarding the scope of undue influence and the testator's intent. This creates a higher burden for proponents of a challenged will to defeat a claim at an early stage, forcing such matters toward a factual determination at trial.
