“E-Z Legal Form” Will Leads to Expensive Litigation

The Florida Supreme Court has refused to reform a pre-printed will lacking a residuary clause to devise after-acquired property to the stated beneficiary.   The case points out the perils of using pre-printed legal forms.

Overview

The decedent wrote her will on an “E—Z Legal Form.” She handwrote instructions on the preprinted form, stating that she wished to give certain “possessions listed” to her sister.  She also wrote that if her sister predeceased her, she wanted “all listed” property to go to her living brother. The will contained no other distributive provisions, including no residuary clause. It was duly signed and witnessed.

Three years, later, the decedent’s sister predeceased her, leaving cash and real property to the decedent. After the death of her sister, the decedent executed a document entitled “Just a note,” which stated that it was an addendum to her will and that she wished to leave all of her worldly possessions to her brother because her sister had passed away. Both the decedent and her brother’s daughter signed the document.  The document also attempted to name the living brother’s daughter as the decedent’s personal representative. Because there were not two witness signatures, the purported addendum was not an enforceable testamentary instrument under Florida law. Two years later, the decedent died.

The court appointed the decedent’s brother to be the personal representative of the decedent’s estate. He sought to have a court determine who was to inherit the property that the decedent acquired after the execution of her will.  The decedent’s nieces from a predeceased brother asserted an interest in the probate action. The brother argued that he should be the one to inherit the land and cash that the decedent had inherited from her sister because he was the only named beneficiary in the will. He asserted that Florida law had a legal presumption against constructions resulting in partial intestacy. The nieces argued that without a general devise or a residuary clause, the will contained no mechanism to dispose of the after-acquired property. As such, they argued, the decedent died intestate as to the cash (which had been invested in an investment account) and the real property the decedent acquired from her sister.

Lower Court Proceedings

The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the brother, citing Fla. Stat. §732.6005(2), which provided that a will should be construed to pass all property that the testator owned at death, including after-acquired property.

The appellate court reversed the trial court’s decision and entered summary judgment in favor of the nieces, concluding that the statutory presumption did not apply because the disputed property was not even alluded to in the will. Therefore, the appellate found that it was irrelevant whether the property was acquired before or after the will was executed.

Florida Supreme Court Analysis

In response to the brother’s application for review, the Florida Supreme Court certified the case as having great public importance and affirmed the decision of the appellate court.  The Court found that the legislative history of Fla. Stat. §732.6005 supported the finding of the appellate court.. The purpose of the statute preceding Fla. Stat. §732.6005 (which was a mere housecleaning revision to the predecessor statute) was to allow after-acquired property to be passed via the residuary clause of a will. Prior to that provision (which was enacted in 1892), a will was ineffective to pass real property through a residuary clause if the testator had no interest in the property at the time the will was executed. The statute did not preclude the decedent from partially devising her estate and allowing the balance to be distributed according to the laws of intestate succession.

The Court ruled that the will was not ambiguous. There were no provisions in the will difficult to reconcile. The will simply expressed no intent by the decedent to dispose of her after-acquired property. The Court stated that to apply the construction of the will asserted by the brother would be to import into the will an intention not therein expressed. Such an interpretation would violate “the long-established principle embodied in the laws of the land,” that a court’s role is to enforce the stated intention of the testator, not to discern the reasonableness of one potential devise over another.

The will clearly expressed an intent to devise only the “listed property” to the decedent’s brother. The Court stated that it could not rewrite the will to include provisions regarding property for which the testator made none.

Conclusion

Concurring Justice Pariente provided a most apt concluding analysis for this case:

While I appreciate that there are many individuals in this state who might have difficulty affording a lawyer, this case does remind me of the old adage ‘penny-wise and pound-foolish’… I therefore take this opportunity to highlight a cautionary tale of the potential dangers of utilizing pre-printed forms and drafting a will without legal assistance. As this case illustrates, that decision can ultimately result in the frustration of the testator’s intent, in addition to the payment of extensive attorney’s fees—the precise results the testator sought to avoid in the first place.