Case Name: In re ESTATE of Sophie AGARDY, Deceased. Helen BERVID, Appellant, v. Richard DUNN, as Executor of the Estate of Sophie Agardy, Deceased, Appellee
Court: Florida District Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Florida
Decision Date: 1974-04-23
Citations: 293 So. 2d 145
Docket Number: Nos. 73-908, 73-912
Parties: In re ESTATE of Sophie AGARDY, Deceased. Helen BERVID, Appellant, v. Richard DUNN, as Executor of the Estate of Sophie Agardy, Deceased, Appellee.
Judges: Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 293
Pages: 145–146

Head Matter:
In re ESTATE of Sophie AGARDY, Deceased. Helen BERVID, Appellant, v. Richard DUNN, as Executor of the Estate of Sophie Agardy, Deceased, Appellee.
Nos. 73-908, 73-912.
District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
April 23, 1974.
Julius H. Erstling, South Miami, for appellant.
Weintraub & Weintraub, Miami, for ap-pellee.
Before BARKDULL, C. J., and CARROLL and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
In these cases consolidated for trial, appellant, the petitioner in the court below, appeals an order (1) denying her petition for revocation of probate of the will of the decedent, and (2) dismissing her complaint with prejudice to set aside a Quitclaim deed executed by appellant whereby she re-conveyed certain property to the decedent.
The judge found that the decedent possessed testamentary capacity on the date of the execution of the will and also found that no confidential relationship existed between the decedent and the beneficiaries under the will. The determination of these factual matters was within the domain of the trial judge and we find there was sufficient evidence to sustain his findings of fact. Jones v. Bernard, Fla.App.1963, 156 So.2d 766.
Likewise as to the execution of the deed, the trial judge determined that the testimony was insufficient to prove fraud on the part of the decedent and this finding will not be disturbed on appeal for the record adequately supports this determination. See 14 Fla.Jur. Fraud and Deceit § 89 (1957).
Accordingly, the judgment herein appealed is affirmed.
Affirmed.