Jones v. Bernard

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jones v. Bernard

156 So. 2d 766

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedSeptember 27, 1963

DocketNo. 3873

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 156 So. 2d 766 (Jones v. Bernard) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jones v. Bernard, 156 So. 2d 766 (Fla. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This case is an appeal from the County Judge’s Court of Orange County in probate proceedings.

The appellant was the petitioner in the lower court and has appealed an order denying her petition for revocation of probate of the Will of appellee’s decedent. The probate judge found that the decedent possessed testamentary capacity on the date of execution of the Will and further found that no confidential relationship existed between the decedent and the chief beneficiary under the Will.

The determination of these factual matters were within the domain of the trial judge and we find there was sufficient evidence to sustain his findings of fact. We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

KANNER, Acting C. J., ALLEN, J, and FUSSELL, CARROLL W., Associate Judge, concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

This case is an appeal from the County Judge’s Court of Orange County in probate proceedings.

The appellant was the petitioner in the lower court and has appealed an order denying her petition for revocation of probate of the Will of appellee’s decedent. The probate judge found that the decedent possessed testamentary capacity on the date of execution of the Will and further found that no confidential relationship existed between the decedent and the chief beneficiary under the Will.

The determination of these factual matters were within the domain of the trial judge and we find there was sufficient evidence to sustain his findings of fact. We therefore affirm.

Affirmed.

KANNER, Acting C. J., ALLEN, J, and FUSSELL, CARROLL W., Associate Judge, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 So. 2d 766, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-bernard-fladistctapp-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack