Zeller v. Zelnick

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Zeller v. Zelnick

476 So. 2d 299, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2325, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16207

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedOctober 9, 1985

DocketNo. 84-2343

StatusPublished

This text of 476 So. 2d 299 (Zeller v. Zelnick) 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

Zeller v. Zelnick, 476 So. 2d 299, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2325, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16207 (Fla. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that the evidence in this case was insufficient to raise a presumption of undue influence. In re Estate of Carpenter, 253 So.2d 697 (Fla.1971). We further find the inconsistent statement of the trial court that the evidence was sufficient to require respondents to come forward with a reasonable explanation insufficient to preclude affirmance. If the proponent was given the responsibility of going forward, as she was, the evidence supports the trial court’s ultimate conclusion that all of the evidence fails to prove that the proponent exercised any undue influence. The burden of proof remained on the opponent, throughout the case ¹; and there is record [300]*300support to conclude that the burden was not met.

HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.

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

PER CURIAM.

We find no error in the trial court’s conclusion that the evidence in this case was insufficient to raise a presumption of undue influence. In re Estate of Carpenter, 253 So.2d 697 (Fla.1971). We further find the inconsistent statement of the trial court that the evidence was sufficient to require respondents to come forward with a reasonable explanation insufficient to preclude affirmance. If the proponent was given the responsibility of going forward, as she was, the evidence supports the trial court’s ultimate conclusion that all of the evidence fails to prove that the proponent exercised any undue influence. The burden of proof remained on the opponent, throughout the case ¹; and there is record [300]*300support to conclude that the burden was not met.

HERSEY, C.J., and DOWNEY and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

476 So. 2d 299, 10 Fla. L. Weekly 2325, 1985 Fla. App. LEXIS 16207, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zeller-v-zelnick-fladistctapp-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack