Case Name: In re The ESTATE OF Walter J. JONES, Deceased. Karen Carey HALL, Appellant, v. Edwin C. JONES, as Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Walter J. Jones, Deceased, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1985-07-12
Citations: 472 So. 2d 1299
Docket Number: No. 84-1204
Parties: In re The ESTATE OF Walter J. JONES, Deceased. Karen Carey HALL, Appellant, v. Edwin C. JONES, as Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Walter J. Jones, Deceased, Appellee.
Judges: GRIMES, A.C.J., and LEHAN, concur.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 472
Pages: 1299–1303

Head Matter:
In re The ESTATE OF Walter J. JONES, Deceased. Karen Carey HALL, Appellant, v. Edwin C. JONES, as Successor Personal Representative of the Estate of Walter J. Jones, Deceased, Appellee.
No. 84-1204.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.
July 12, 1985.
Robert M. Winick of Phillips, McFarland, Gould & Wagstaff, P.A., Clearwater, for appellant.
Marian P. McCulloch and J. Baird Lefter of Jacobs, Robbins, Gaynor, Burton, Hampp, Burns, Bronstein & Shasteen, P.A., Tampa, for appellee.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
This is an appeal from an order of ademption.
The dispositive scheme of Mr. Jones, as evidenced by his will, consisted entirely of eleven specific bequests contained in separately numbered paragraphs and a single residuary bequest. His named heirs were a sister, two sisters-in-law, three nieces (one of which was appellant), four nephews and a grandniece. The bequest to appellant read as follows:
To my niece, KAREN CAREY HALL, whose address is 832 Brookwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48104, I give the equitable interest and/or income from my former home located in Lake of the Woods, Virginia, provided she survives me.
Mr. Jones had sold his former home in Lake of the Woods, Virginia, on May 13, 1981. He received a note and deed of trust to secure payment in the amount of $42,-000.00, payable in 120 equal monthly installments. He executed his will on February 18, 1982. On July 27, 1982, the deed of trust note was prepaid in full to Mr. Jones in the amount of $42,054.00. Mr. Jones died on December 18, 1982, without having changed his will. An amended inventory revealed that his estate included a money market certificate in the amount of $40,-000.00 and $2,054.00 in the decedent's regular account.
At the trial, the appellant was prepared to introduce testimony that Mr. Jones knew that she needed money because of her debilitating health and that the relationship between them remained cordial until the time of his death. However, the trial court refused to entertain evidence concerning the intent of the testator. The court construed the bequest to appellant as a specific bequest and ruled that because the specific property bequeathed was no longer in existence, the bequest failed or adeemed.
There is a split of authority with respect to whether the testator's intent has any bearing on a question of ademption. According to the majority rule, the testator's intent is irrelevant. 6 W. Bowe & D. Parker, Page on the Law of Wills § 54.15 (new rev.ed.1962). Where there is a specific bequest, the issue is decided solely on the basis of whether or not the described property is a part of the testator's estate at the time of his death. Id. § 54.09. This view has been criticized as causing unjust results because in many cases the purpose of a bequest is simply to confer an economic benefit regardless of whether or not the description is specific. Note, Ademption and the Testator's Intent, 74 Harv.L.Rev. 741 (1960-1961).
The Florida courts have embraced the minority theory which takes into consideration the testator's intent. Thus, in Eisenschenk v. Fowler, 82 So.2d 876, 878 (Fla.1955), the supreme court said:
The prime concern in determining whether or not an ademption resulted in the instant case is the familiar rule governing construction of wills, namely that the court should determine what the testator intended by what he did.
The case of In re Estate of Watkins, 284 So.2d 679 (Fla.1973), illustrates that in determining issues of ademption it is proper to consider matters bearing on the testator's intent which occur subsequent to the execution of the will. Thus, the court said:
We agree with Petitioner that when there is no act on the part of a testator manifesting a change of intent, there is no ademption of the property bequested if it is in existence or can be traced.
284 So.2d at 681. In Forbes v. Burket, 181 So.2d 682 (Fla. 2d DCA 1966), our court discussed the conflicting theories in a dispute over the validity of the specific devise of a house which the testatrix's guardian had sold before the testatrix died. The testatrix had had nothing to do with the sale and the proceeds thereof were not needed for her support. We held that the devisee stated a cause of action on the premise that the testatrix intended that he receive the proceeds of the sale.
The case of Estate of Austin, 113 Cal.App.3d 167, 169 Cal.Rptr. 648 (1980), is instructive on the relevance of intent. There, the testatrix bequeathed to appellant a promissory note together with the deed of trust which secured the note. The note was paid in full four months after the will was executed, and the proceeds were placed in a savings account. A portion of the account was then loaned to another party in return for a promissory note and mortgage. When the testatrix died without having changed her will, the issue was whether or not the bequest of the original note had adeemed. On appeal from a judgment of ademption, the court of appeal stated:
In discerning the intent of the testatrix, we look first at the will. It is remarkable for the number and diversity of the legacies and bequests. It demonstrates a mind that enjoyed giving to many beneficiaries. Although there is a residuary clause in the will, there is a manifest intention to particularize the disposition of assets.
There is nothing in the record to suggest that the testatrix did anything to initiate the payoff of the Grenz note. It was paid incident to the sale of the property which was the security of the note.
There is nothing to show that the testatrix had a change of mind as to the appellant being a proper beneficiary of her estate. The oil portrait of the testatrix' mother remained a bequest to appellant.
She did nothing with reference to the proceeds except deposit them in a manner which was easily traceable and invested them in an almost identical type of asset — a promissory note secured by a deed of trust.
In determining whether the change is in form only, California courts have lately tended to avoid strict rules of ademption; rather they look to the inferred or probable intent of the testator under the particular circumstances....
In absence of proof of an intent that the gift fail, there should be no ademtion....
We find that there is no indication of an intent by the testatrix to adeem, and that the judgment must be reversed.
113 Cal.App.3d at 173-174, 169 Cal.Rptr. at 651-652 (citations omitted).
As part of the new probate code, our legislature determined that under certain circumstances ademption shall not occur. § 732.606, Fla.Stat. (1981). When the statute applies, the testator's intent is irrelevant, Owen v. Wilson, 399 So.2d 498 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); however, there was no indication that the legislature intended that this statute would supplant Florida case law in those instances not covered by it. Since the statute is not applicable to the circumstances of the instant case, we believe that the court erred in refusing to entertain evidence pertaining to intent.
The trial judge refused to permit testimony concerning the intent of the testator because he found that there was no ambiguity in the will which would require clarification by parol evidence. However, we find the issue to be not whether the will was ambiguous but whether Mr. Jones intended that the prepayment of his promissory note would have the effect of disinheriting his niece. See In re Estate of Watkins. The fact that he lived for five more months without changing his will may indicate that she was no longer the object of his bounty. That he segregated the proceeds of the prepayment in a form that was easily traceable may suggest a contrary intent. In any event, in order to properly determine whether ademption occurred, the court should entertain all relevant evidence pertaining to the decedent's intent.
Reversed and remanded.
GRIMES, A.C.J., and LEHAN, concur.
CAMPBELL, J., dissents with opinion.