MATTHIAS MORROW v. JOHN WESTLY MORROW

• Court: District Court of Appeal of Florida
• Decided: February 8, 2023
• Docket: 22-0858
• Status: Published

Opinion

Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida

Opinion filed February 8, 2023.

________________

No. 3D22-0858 Lower Tribunal No. 19-2015 ________________

Matthias Morrow, Appellant,

vs.

John Westly Morrow, Appellee.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge E. Cueto, Judge.

Counselaw, and Angelo M. Martin, for appellant.

Law Office of Elizabeth Delgado, P.A., and Elizabeth Delgado Mizrahi, for appellee.

Before EMAS, HENDON, and MILLER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

UPON CONFESSION OF ERROR In these adversarial probate proceedings, appellant, Matthias Morrow,

challenges an order striking the purported last will and testament of the

decedent, Bunny Lee Morrow, as violative of section 732.502, Florida

Statutes (2018). On appeal, appellant contends the trial court erred in

striking the document without first conducting an evidentiary hearing. Upon

appellee’s commendable confession of error and our own independent

review of the record, we reverse. Although the will was handwritten, it

reflected the signatures of the testator, two witnesses, and a notary, along

with a notary seal. § 732.502(1), Fla. Stat. (“Every will must be in writing and

executed as follows: . . . The testator must sign the will at the end . . . . The

testator’s . . . [s]igning, or . . . [a]cknowledgment . . . [t]hat he or she has

previously signed the will . . . must be in the presence of at least two attesting

witnesses . . . . The attesting witnesses must sign the will in the presence of

the testator and in the presence of each other.”); § 732.502(2), Fla. Stat. (“A

will in the testator’s handwriting that has been executed in accordance with

subsection (1) shall not be considered a holographic will.”). Consequently,

it did not facially violate the Florida Probate Code. Accordingly, we reverse

and remand for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.