Title: In Re Baldridge's Estate

State: florida

Issuer: Florida Supreme Court

Document:

74 So. 2d 658 (1954)
In re BALDRIDGE's ESTATE.
MERTENS et al.
v.
HAMILTON et al.

Supreme Court of Florida. En Banc.
March 23, 1954.
Rehearing Denied July 10, 1954.
Ginsberg & Pelle, Harold Ungerleider and Arthur Winton, Miami, for appellants.
J. Fritz Gordon, Miami, for Lena Hogan Hamilton.
M. Lewis Hall, Jr., Miami, attorney and guardian ad litem for the minor child Jennie Lee Cannon, sometimes known as Jennie Lee Marks.
H.H. Taylor and Henry H. Taylor, Jr., Miami, for Miriam Cannon individually, and as mother and next friend of Jennie Lee Cannon, also known as Jennie Lee Marks.
Redfearn & Ferrell, Miami, for First Nat. Bank of Miami, as Executors of the Last Will and Testament of Marie A. Baldridge, deceased.
Clyde Epperson, Miami, for Dade County Cancer Institute.
DREW, Justice.
The County Judge of Dade County, following extended hearings before him in which more than 700 pages of testimony were taken and many exhibits introduced, entered an order admitting to probate the last will and testament of Marie Astor Baldridge dated November 19, 1951, and denying admission to probate of a former will of the decedent dated May 5, 1950. This order, inter alia, found:
An appeal was taken to the Circuit Court of Dade County from the foregoing order. Following the entry of an opinion affirming the County Judge's order and finding "that there is substantial competent evidence [in the record] to support the findings of the Probate Judge and that he did not misapprehend the legal effect of the evidence as a whole," the Circuit Court granted a rehearing and on reconsideration reversed that portion of the County Judge's order finding that the will of the deceased was "her own free act and disposing deed, without fraud, coercion or undue influence," insofar as the appellants Mertens, Wickman, Gray and Karas were concerned. As to these four beneficiaries he held the will of November 19, 1951 invalid, but, pursuant to Section 731.08, Florida Statutes, 1951, F.S.A., the remaining portion of the said will was declared valid. In this latter opinion and judgment of the Circuit Judge, from which this appeal is prosecuted, the able Circuit Judge, among other things, said:
He continues with an exhaustive review of the evidence taken before the County Judge and his deductions therefrom and sets forth what he considers to be the applicable law. He then concludes as follows:
We find nothing in the record to indicate that the County Judge held that the burden did not pass to the proponents, unless such could be inferred from the order of the County Judge admitting the will of November 19, 1951, to probate. Even if it could be argued that such was the case, we think the burden was carried by the proponents and that the evidence in the record amply supports the conclusions reached by the County Judge.
No useful purpose would be served by a detailed review of the evidence which was taken before the County Judge and the exhibits which he had before him. The trial was conducted by able attorneys and when the evidence was concluded no stone remained unturned. The County Judge, the trier of the facts under the law, had the witnesses before him; he had the opportunity of observing them on the stand, of noting the inflections of their voices, of seeing their facial expressions, and of *660 perceiving their promptness or hesitancy in their answers to questions, their sincerity or lack of sincerity, and untold other matters which cannot be included in a record in an appellate court. Every judge knows that these intangible and sometimes elusive factors are as essential to the determination of truth as the spoken word. All of these factors are fed into the trained mind of a trial judge and his conclusions are the essence thereof. Appellate courts simply don't have the same material to deal with in respect to evidence as does the trial court and that is the reason that this Court has said on innumerable occasions that neither we nor other appellate courts have the right to interfere with the findings of fact of the trial court unless there is an absence of substantial competent evidence to support such findings or the trial court misapprehends the legal effect of such evidence as a whole. In the recent case of In re Kiggins' Estate, Fla., 1953, 67 So. 2d 915, 917, a case strikingly similar to this one, we said:
For the reasons pointed out in this opinion the judgment appealed from is hereby reversed with directions to enter a judgment affirming the order of the County Judge admitting the will of November 19, 1951, to probate. That part of the order appealed from finding that the testatrix had testamentary capacity is affirmed.
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
THOMAS, SEBRING and MATHEWS, JJ., concur.
ROBERTS, C.J., and BARNS, J., dissent.
TERRELL, J., not participating.
ROBERTS, Chief Justice (dissenting).
The Circuit Judge, sitting as an appellate court, was in my opinion eminently correct in holding that the Probate Judge misapprehended the legal effect of the evidence before him, and that such evidence showed that the appellants Mertens, Wickman, Gray and Karas had exercised undue influence in procuring the legacies to themselves in the 1951 will. Indeed, in my opinion, such evidence leads inevitably to the conclusion that, in the absence of such undue influence, the testatrix would not have revoked her 1950 will, which left her property to those who were the natural and normal objects of her bounty, and substituted therefor the 1951 will, which changed the general testamentary scheme of disposition of her property as made in the 1950 will. It is my opinion that the execution of the 1951 will was the creature of such undue influence.
Section 731.09, Florida Statutes, F.S.A., provides that "If the revocation of a will, or any part thereof, is procured by fraud, duress, menace or undue influence, such revocation shall be void."
It follows, therefore, that since the 1951 will, containing the revocation of the 1950 will, was procured through the exercise of undue influence, the revocation clause contained in the 1951 will must fail and the 1950 will is the valid testamentary expression of the decedent and should be probated.
I would affirm in part and reverse in part the order of the Circuit Judge here appealed from, with directions that an order be entered directing the probate of the 1950 will.
BARNS, Justice, dissenting to the majority opinion and specially concurring with the opinion of the CHIEF JUSTICE.
The First National Bank of Miami, Executor of the Will of Marie A. Baldridge of November 19, 1951, offered the will in question for probate. Miriam Cannon, *661 mother and next friend of Jenny Lee Marks  also known as Jenny Lee Cannon  a grandniece of the testatrix, and Lena Hogan Hamilton, Executrix under a prior will, contested the will offered for probate and offered for probate such prior will. From an adverse decision admitting the will offered for probate by The First National Bank, the contestants Cannon and Hamilton took their appeal to the Circuit Court. That court reversed the judgment of the County Judge, holding that the bequests to Mertens, Gray, Karas and Wickman were the result of undue influence vitiating the bequests to them, but affirmed the order of the County Judge otherwise in admitting the will to probate and denying the probate of the former will.
From the judgment of the Circuit Court, Mertens, Wickman, Karas and Gray took an appeal to this Court. Miriam Cannon, mother and next friend of Jenny Lee Cannon, and Lena Hogan Hamilton were named as Appellees. They took a cross-appeal but also named The First National Bank, Appellee in the Circuit Court below, as an Appellee herein.
The findings of the Circuit Judge were as follows:
The findings of the County Judge were as follows:
Marie A. Baldridge was a middle-aged woman at the time she died. Her death was the proximate result of cancer. For several years she had been affected with the disease and had incurred operations in an effort to terminate its progress. She was a single woman, having been divorced a number of years prior to her death. She was apparently close to her mother, but did not maintain cordial relations with her sister, Genevieve Heironymus. Prior to the death of her mother in November, 1949, her mother executed a deed conveying to Marie A. Baldridge the home place, being about all of the family property. At the time of the conveyance, her mother requested that part of the property, Lots 2 and 3 of Block 95 South, Miami, Florida, be conveyed to a grandniece, Jenny Lee Marks, in the event Marie A. Baldridge held the same at her death. This request, which in and of itself would appear to have been part of the consideration for the original conveyance to Marie A. Baldridge, is clearly set forth in paragraph IV of the Last Will and Testament of Marie A. Baldridge executed on May 5, 1950.
After the death of the mother, one of the daughters, Genevieve Heironymus, by suit contested the validity of the deed to her sister, Marie A. Baldridge, the testatrix of the alleged will. This action on the part of Genevieve Heironymus, the grandmother of Jenny Lee Marks, created further animosity between the two sisters.
This was the situation at the time of the execution of the Last Will and Testament dated May 5, 1950. By the terms of that will, the request and understanding on the part of Marie A. Baldridge's mother was *664 honored by the testatrix. Certain old friends were the object of specific legacies. Among these were Lena Hogan Hamilton, a close friend and companion of some 20 years; Nellie Blake Hart, a companion and household attendant for a great number of years; and Mary Gallagher Clifton, also a long-time companion and friend. Miriam Cannon, a niece of Marie A. Baldridge and the daughter of Genevieve Heironymus, was remembered to the extent of a Dodge automobile. In addition, a specific bequest was made to Sts. Peter and Paul Catholic Church and to the Dade County Cancer Institute. Jenny Lee Marks was left the residue of the estate, including the said Lots 2 and 3. The testatrix' devoted friend, Lena Hogan Hamilton, was appointed executrix of the will. The majority of the estate, which consisted of family real property with improvements thereon, went to a grandniece, Jenny Lee Marks, who, though a granddaughter of Genevieve Heironymus, was completely disassociated from the family disputes.
Subsequent to the execution of the will of May 5, 1950, and on the very day of her death, Marie A. Baldridge executed a new will which voided the prior will and completely altered the testamentary disposition of the deceased's property. The request of Frances H. Baldridge, mother of the testatrix, that Lots 2 and 3 be devised to Jenny Lee Marks was dishonored; and in place of old friends, Nellie Blake Hart, Lena Hogan Hamilton and Mary Clifton  an array of new-found friends, including one Dorothy Mertens, Lina Gray, Mrs. Irving Karas, and Dr. Wickman, her attending physician, were substituted as special legatees. The First National Bank was made Executor of the alleged will of November 19, 1951; and further, the Executor was designated as guardian of any funds that might accrue in favor of Jenny Lee Cannon by virtue of the residuary clause.
Miss Baldridge had had an attorney, Thomas H. Anderson, who had served her for a considerable period of time prior to her demise. Neither he nor the attorney who drafted the will of May 5, 1950 was requested by her to draw the death bed Will. Miss Baldridge had never met Mr. Redfearn until a few days prior to her death. She never contacted him, but while she was in the hospital in the summer of 1951, Dorothy A. Mertens called Mr. Redfearn and asked him to come to the hospital for the purpose of drawing a will. For some reason, the latter did not do so. On November 8, 1951, 11 days prior to the death of the testatrix, Dorothy Mertens again called Mr. Redfearn and asked him to go to the home of Miss Baldridge as she wanted to make a will. The testimony in the case discloses that Miss Baldridge, up to that time, constantly used the telephone but she did not call Mr. Redfearn. The latter went to the home and made some notes and prepared a will, carbon copy of which he sent by mail to her home. Nothing further was heard by Mr. Redfearn until the morning of November 19, 1951, when Dorothy Mertens again called him and told him to go to Miss Baldridge's home, as she wanted to execute the will. Mr. Redfearn then telephoned the home and talked to Dr. Wickman who said, referring to Miss Baldridge  "She is in a critical condition."
The testimony of Dr. Wickman is enlightening as to events succeeding the arrival of Mr. Redfearn.
Mr. Redfearn verified the critical condition of Miss Baldridge when he arrived at the home by his testimony:
The draft of the will was thereafter changed by interlineation, was initialled and was signed by the testatrix in front of the witnesses. The testimony was uncontradicted that Miss Baldridge did not request any of the witnesses to come into the room, and, further, that she made no statement concerning the will in their presence. The will was not read to the decedent at any time, either prior to the entry of the witnesses or in their presence.
After the execution of the will, Mr. Redfearn testified he told the decedent he would take the original will and hold it for safekeeping, but that the carbon copy would be left with her.
Dr. Wickman's description of the patient at the time of the execution of the will was as follows:
Dr. Wickman also said that poisons were accumulating in her system and made the statement that when he arrived around 9:00 or 9:30 a.m., November 19, 1951, he felt she definitely looked much worse and that he thought she was dying.
The attending nurse testified:
The notes of the nurse for the two days preceding November 19, the day of the signing of the last will and the day of Marie's death, are as follows:
The opponents appellants called as witnesses two of the outstanding experts on neuro-psychiatry and a surgeon who qualified as an expert in the cancer field. The former two were Drs. James L. Anderson and William H. Izlar, and the latter was Dr. Harold S. Kaufman. To the hypothetical question directed to these doctors, each testified in substance that the testatrix, Marie A. Baldridge, was not possessed of her normal mental faculties so as to comprehend the effect and result of executing a will.
Dr. Anderson went so far as to say in layman's language which we can understand:
Dr. Harold S. Kaufman, a surgeon skilled in operating cancer cases, testified that in his long experience with cancer patients, he had never known one dying a slow, deteriorating death to be competent to transact business on the day of death. Furthermore, as has been noted from the testimony of the attending nurse and physician, the testatrix was suffering from a great accumulation of fluids. According to Dr. Izlar:
The hypothetical question directed to the Doctors was as follows:
The Appellant-attending physician testified with reference to the morning of the execution of the will as follows:
Dr. Izlar on cross-examination analyzed the effect of opiates administered to the testatrix as follows:
Further describing the effect of narcotics, Dr. Izlar gave the following opinion:
Dr. Kaufman testified that it was his opinion that Marie A. Baldridge was mentally incapacitated to execute a will on the morning of November 19, 1951, as a result of the drugs constantly administered to her during her last illness.
In a will contest an appellate court usually accepts the trial court's resolution of a question of fact when based on conflicting evidence, but when the question of fact resolved is based on an inferential fact drawn from nonconflicting evidentiary facts the appellate court is as competent as the trial court to deduct inferences of fact. When there are conflicts in the evidence as to any material fact the trial court has many advantages not available to an appellate court, and, furthermore, it does not follow that the trial court is in error merely because the appellate court would have come to a contrary conclusion in resolving the conflict as to an evidentiary fact relating to the ultimate fact in controversy. The appellate court is as free as the trial court to determine what inferential facts are established by the non-controverted evidence.
It is the function of the trial court to pass upon the credibility of the witnesses in event that question is involved by reason of conflicts in the evidence as to any factual matter. In re Estate of Donnelly (Gold v. Ashby), 137 Fla. 459, 188 So. 108. A finding of fact by the trial court in a non-jury case will not be set aside on review unless there is no substantial evidence to sustain it, unless it is against the weight of the evidence, or unless it was induced by an erroneous view of the law. A finding which rests on conclusions drawn from undisputed evidence, rather than on conflicts in the testimony, does not carry with it the same conclusiveness as a finding resting on probative disputed facts, but is rather in the nature of a legal conclusion. 3 Am.Jur. 471. When the appellate court is convinced that an express or inferential finding of the trial court is without support of any substantial evidence, is against the weight of the evidence or that the trial court has misapplied the law to the established facts, then the decision *670 is "clearly erroneous" and the appellate court will reverse because the trial court has "failed to give legal effect to the evidence" in its entirety. We may not be required to state wherein the lower court has "failed to give legal effect to the evidence" when we reverse on that ground, but under such circumstances propriety dictates that we should.
It is well recognized that one normally competent may be incapacitated by alcohol, drugs, fever, disease or shock. The facts in the case at bar have as much in common with the leading case of Newman v. Smith, 77 Fla. 633, 667, 82 So. 236, 241, that we feel justified in quoting as follows:
The probative evidentiary facts recited in the nurse's notes, the evidentiary facts recited in the findings of the Circuit Judge, and the evidentiary facts recited in the hypothetical question propounded to Doctors Izlar, Anderson, and Kaufman, are without substantial controversy. From these facts and all the other facts and circumstances it is my conclusion that the will in question was executed while in extremis when the testatrix was not exercising the free use of a sound mind and that the will is not the expression of her free intent, and it was error to admit it to probate.
The case should stand remanded to the County Judge's Court with directions to proceed not inconsistent herewith.
I therefore dissent.
ROBERTS, C.J., concurs.