For Love or Money?
From: wealthmanagement.com
Florida Appellate Court affirms finding of spousal undue influence
Statistically, undue influence is the most frequent legal basis for invalidating a will in Florida.1 Because an undue influencer usually exercises influence over the decedent behind closed doors, opponents of a will generally have little, if any, direct evidence available to establish that a will was procured by undue influence.
Realizing this, in 2002, the Florida legislature enacted Fla. Stat. Section 733.107(2), providing that if a contestant establishes a presumption of undue influence, the burden of proof shifts from the will contestant to the will proponent, requiring the proponent to establish that the will wasn’t procured by undue influence. An important exception to this burden-shifting rule is that the evidentiary presumption of undue influence generally can’t arise when the alleged influencer is the decedent’s spouse, making it extremely difficult to establish spousal undue influence. For this reason, the recent Florida opinion in Blinn v. Carlman is rare.
Stepmommy Dearest
In 2007, Richard Blinn, the owner of a yacht brokerage business, married his fourth wife, Demetra, at the ripe old age of 81. Demetra wasn’t dissuaded from marrying Richard, despite the fact that he’d been suffering from progressive dementia since 2006.
After less than a year of marriage, Richard executed a new will (the 2008 Will), leaving his estate outright to Demetra, if she survived him or, if she predeceased him, to charity. Demetra attempted to probate the 2008 Will shortly after Richard’s death; however, Richard’s children, Patty and Brian, filed an action seeking to invalidate the 2008 Will based on undue influence. The trial court found that the 2008 Will was procured by undue influence on the part of Demetra, and Demetra appealed.
Evidence of Undue Influence
Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeal (the Fourth DCA) affirmed, finding that substantial competent evidence existed to support the trial court’s ruling that the 2008 Will was procured as a result of spousal undue influence, including:
Richard’s declining health. The Fourth DCA first explored the facts establishing that Richard was highly susceptible to undue influence due to his declining physical and mental state. The court found that from 2006 forward, Richard’s progressive dementia worsened, which led him to begin engaging in inappropriate behaviors and outwardly expressing his paranoid beliefs. In addition, due to his declining health, Richard began making imprudent financial decisions, which negatively affected his business. For example, Richard began regularly playing mail-away scam lotteries in foreign countries, and, despite never receiving any money, he was adamant that he was consistently winning significant sums. Richard’s mental state around the time of the execution of the 2008 Will was an important factor because, in Florida, if a decedent is weak and his intellect is clouded, the amount of undue influence needn’t be “great” to revoke a will.3
Execution of the 2008 Will. Next, the Fourth DCA considered the circumstances surrounding the execution of the 2008 Will, which it deemed “most suspicious.”4 While two lawyers were involved in the process of procuring the 2008 Will, a referring lawyer and a drafting lawyer, neither took any responsibility for its preparation or content.
At trial, the referring lawyer testified that he merely put the decedent in touch with the drafting lawyer, his former law partner, but never discussed the content of the 2008 Will with Richard, Demetra or the drafting lawyer. In sharp contrast, the drafting lawyer testified that he received instructions regarding the dispositive provisions of the 2008 Will from the referring lawyer and that he never spoke with Richard and Demetra until Richard came in to sign the 2008 Will. After considering the testimony of both lawyers, the Fourth DCA commented that if their testimony was accurate, the 2008 Will “drafted itself and miraculously appeared at the drafting lawyer’s office.”
