In re Malone's Will

22 Fla. Supp. 101
CourtDade County Judge's Court
DecidedJanuary 30, 1964
DocketNo. 59960-B
StatusPublished

This text of 22 Fla. Supp. 101 (In re Malone's Will) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Dade County Judge's Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In re Malone's Will, 22 Fla. Supp. 101 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1964).

Opinion

FRANK B. DOWLING, Judge.

This cause came on to be heard on trial and final hearing on the petition of Beatrice Neale for the probate of the will of E. B. Malone, deceased, executed on the 10th day of August, 1962, and the answer to said petition and objection to the probate of. said will filed by Westminster Presbyterian Church, Thornwell [103]*103Orphanage, United Cerebral Palsy Association of Miami, Florida Presbyterian College, Presbytery of the Everglades, and Mrs. Margaret Venable Wilson. The contestants are each severally named as legatees, beneficiaries and distributees under the terms of a prior will executed by the decedent under date of March 2, 1960.

The issue made by the petition for probate and the answer of the legatees is that the purported will of August 10, 1960 was induced and procured by Beatrice Neale and William J. Neale, who each at the time of the execution of said will held the complete confidence of and bore a confidential relationship to the decedent, in that Beatrice Neale at the time of the execution of said purported will was the designated confidential representative and agent of E. B. Malone, and William J. Neale, the son of Beatrice Neale, was the personal attorney of E. B. Malone, by and through and as a direct result of the exertion and exercise by them and each of them of undue and improper influence on the mind of the decedent. Moreover, it is contended that such undue and improper influence was exerted and exercised by Beatrice Neale and her son, William J. Neale, in their own behalf and for the purpose of inducing the decedent to execute a will by which the major part of the estate of the decedent would be devised and bequeathed to Beatrice Neale and a large legacy devised to her son, William J, Neale, to the complete exclusion of the legatees under the former will.

The contestants further contend that at the time of the execution by the decedent of the purported will of August 10, 1962, he was not possessed of sufficient mental capacity and vigor to withstand such undue and improper influence, the exertion of which by Beatrice Neale and William J. Neale caused the decedent to depart from a fixed and determined testamentary intent evidenced by him through prior wills over a period of many years immediately preceding the execution of the will of August 10, 1962.

The contestants further contend that at the time of the execution by the decedent of such purported will, he was not of sound mind and lacked testamentary capacity.

At the trial of the cause, these additional legatees under the former will of 1960, having also answered, appeared as contestants to the probate of said will of August 10, 1962, namely —

The Berry School by its attorney, John G. McKay, Jr.
University of Miami by its attorneys, Redfearn & Simon.
[104]*104The Children’s Home Society of Florida by its attorneys, Ray M. Earnest & M. L. Mershon.
John B. Stetson University, Berea College, Young L. Harris College, First Presbyterian Church of Monticello, Georgia, Jasper Memorial Hospital of Monticello, Georgia, and Monticello Methodist Church of Monticello, Georgia by their attorneys, Padgett, Teasley & Niles.

One of the executors under the will of March 2, 1960 and the codicil thereto of August 30, 1961, namely, Elmo H. Williams, appeared at the trial of said cause by and through his attorneys, Ralph M. Cooper and Walton, Lantaff, Schroeder, Atkins, Carson & Wahl. The other executor, Lee C. Ezell, appeared by his counsel, Padgett, Teasley & Niles. The said executors petition the court for the probate of the will of March 2, 1960 together with the codicil thereto of August 30, 1961.

The First National Bank of Miami, curator, appeared by its attorneys, Scott, McCarthy, Preston & Steel, though it did not participate in the trial of said cause.

Findings, opinion and decree

From the testimony and exhibits proffered and admitted in evidence in this cause, the court makes the following findings of fact —

1. E. B. Malone, sometimes known as Evan B. Malone, died on the 17th day of June, 1963, at the age of 74 years, 11 months and 7 days, of a spontaneous rupture of arteriosclerotic aneurysm of the aorta. In 1957 he was suffering from arteriosclerosis generalized with mild cerebral focalization. This condition increased in intensity and in its degenerative processes to the stage that between June, 1960 and December, 1960, he sustained as a direct result of this condition, a small cerebral vascular accident, or stroke. By January, 1961, the disease had advanced to the point that the prognosis of his family physician was that he would be incompetent on August 10, 1962 to understand the consequences implicit in the execution of a last will and testament.

2. The testator was a bachelor at the time of his death and had expressed the intention throughout his life to remain unmarried. He was, prior to his illness, hereinabove described, an alert, hard, careful and frugal businessman who operated his business with firm control. The clear symptoms of general arteriosclerosis with cerebral vascular involvement were plainly apparent by January, 1961. By March, 1962, his memory had become so faulty that he would ask the same question again in the same conversation even though the question had been fully [105]*105explained when first asked. This condition continued and became progressively worse until his death.

During this period of time, that is early 1962, he could not recall or remember the names of employees and close associates. He was unable to carry on a complete conversation, forgetting in the middle of a sentence the subject matter thereof, so that he could not complete the sentence or thought he was attempting to express.

During said time he could not answer his correspondence or dictate a letter, and thus he required a business associate to answer his correspondence and make business judgments and decisions for him. Simple letters and documents were presented to him for signature, the contents carefully explained to him, and yet within a short period of time he would have forgotten what he had signed. During this period, in business conferences with his associates and partners involving important business decisions, he would fall asleep, and if he expressed a thought during such conferences, it would not be relevant to the subject under discussion. After the conferences were concluded, he would indicate in his conversations that he wholly failed to comprehend what had transpired at the conferences. During this time he showed a lack of confidence in a man who had been his partner for sixteen years, a trusted friend, and associate. He also expressed a lack of confidence in his accountant upon whom he had for many years relied as a business advisor, and in fact, from late 1961, to May, 1962, this advisor had made business judgments and decisions for him.

In March, 1962, he accused this trusted advisor and friend of having procured his signature to papers and documents without furnishing him copies thereof and of procuring his signature to papers and documents which he had not known he was signing and the contents of which were not explained to him.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

In Re Palmer's Estate
48 So. 2d 732 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1950)
In Re Reid's Estate
138 So. 2d 342 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1962)
In Re: Gottschalk Estate
196 So. 844 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1940)
In Re Auerbacher's Estate
41 So. 2d 659 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1949)
Newman v. Smith
77 Fla. 633 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1918)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
22 Fla. Supp. 101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-malones-will-flajudct2-1964.