In re Sheaf's Will

3 Fla. Supp. 73
CourtPalm Beach County Judge's Court
DecidedJune 13, 1952
StatusPublished

This text of 3 Fla. Supp. 73 (In re Sheaf's Will) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Palm Beach 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 Sheaf's Will, 3 Fla. Supp. 73 (Fla. Super. Ct. 1952).

Opinion

RICHARD P. ROBBINS, County Judge.

The last will and testament of Louisa Sheaf, deceased, is brought before me for construction on the petition of Lawrence Karl Klose as the administrator with the will annexed, his answer as the only child and sole heir at law of the deceased, and the answer of one Ralph M. Sheaf, an appointee under an alleged power of appointment in decedent’s will.

On November 5, 1948 Louisa Sheaf and her husband George A. Sheaf executed reciprocal wills. Both wills were prepared by the same attorney, executed at the same time and attested and subscribed by the same witnesses.1 Each gave to the other a life estate, after payment of debts, taxes and expenses, in all property, real, [75]*75personal or mixed, including all equities, etc. Both wills provide that should care and comfort not require the use of the principal of the life estate, it should not be disposed of by deed or gift and upon the death of the life tenant the residue of the life estate should be divided, one-half to whomsoever the life tenant might designate and the remaining one-half to be divided, in the case of Louisa Sheaf, to certain of her relatives in fixed percentages, and in the case of George A. Sheaf, to certain of his relatives in fixed percentages.

George A Sheaf predeceased his wife Louisa Sheaf. With the exception of an automobile and a small mortgage valued at $256.88, all his property was held with his wife as an estate by the entireties.

Lawrence Carl Klose, as the only child and sole heir at law of Louisa Sheaf, contends in his answer that the legacy to his stepfather, George A. Sheaf, lapsed upon his death by virtue of section [76]*76731.20, Florida Statutes 1951,1 and consequently the power granted to him to dispose of half of the estate of Louisa Sheaf to whomsoever he might designate lapsed because it was contingent on a life estate with power to dispose of the fee which never vested and the will did not give George A. Sheaf a power of appointment. He also contends that the legacies of the remaining half of the estate to the relatives of Louisa Sheaf lapsed because they were contingent on a life estate which never vested and that as the only heir at law he is entitled to the entire estate.

I do not agree that the will of Louisa Sheaf does not contain a power of appointment. Mrs. Sheaf knew that the property which she gave in her will was also her husband’s, which he had, by his will given her the power to dispose of in part by her own will.

Reading both wills in the light of these circumstances and other facts in evidence I am led to the conclusion that the intent of Mrs. Sheaf, as expressed by her will, was to give by it, not property which she believed was her own entirely, but a portion of the property of her husband which he had authorized her by his will to dispose of — that each intended to give to the other a power of appointment to one-half of their joint estate — and that the simultaneous execution of the wills constituted a present execution of such powers.

There is authority to the effect that a donor can by will grant to another the power to dispose of the donor’s estate in the donor’s lifetime; such an estate, in the event that the donee predeceases the donor, to pass directly at the donor’s death to the donee’s appointees. 3 Page on Wills (Life Ed.) 863; Murchison v. Wallace (Va.), 159 Atl. 106; De Pass v. Kansas Masonic Home (Fla.), 181 So. 410.

It is therefore ordered that the estate of Louisa Sheaf be distributed, one-half as follows: to Lawrence Carl Klose, decedent’s [77]*77son — 30%; to Wealthy Lawson, decedent’s sister — 20%; to Sirrel Cox, decedent’s brother — 10%; to Ray Cox, decedent’s brother— 10 % ; to Loretta Deckard, decedent’s niece — 30 % and the remaining one-half as follows: to William E. Sheaf, brother of G'eorge A. Sheaf — 10%; to Alfred J. Sheaf, brother of George A. Sheaf — 30%; to James P. Sheaf, brother of George A. Sheaf — 30%; to Ralph Sheaf, brother of George A. Sheaf — 20%; to Calanthy Sheaf, sister of George A. Sheaf — 10%.

In his answer Lawrence Carl Klose asks that this court construe and declare the homestead, consisting of an unnumbered lot on the south side of 25th Street, Riviera Beach, to descend to him as dependent heir of the deceased. Equity has complete jurisdiction over homestead property. The county judge as judge of probate is without jurisdiction to dispose of it and no conduct of any party can confer such jurisdiction upon him.

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

Related

De Pass v. the Kansas Masonic Home Corp.
181 So. 410 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1938)
State v. Blumenthal-Kahn Electric Co.
159 A. 106 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1932)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
3 Fla. Supp. 73, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-sheafs-will-flajudct12-1952.