## Facts

- Ann Dunn Aldrich executed a will in 2004 using a preprinted form and handwrote a list of specific assets to pass to her sister, Mary Jane Eaton (house and lot, IRA, life insurance, car, and identified bank accounts).
- The will provided that if Eaton predeceased Ann, the “listed” items would pass to Ann’s brother, James Michael Aldrich.
- The will contained no residuary clause and no general devise of “all” property.
- Eaton later predeceased Ann; Ann subsequently acquired additional property (cash and land) from Eaton’s estate.
- Ann placed inherited cash into a new Fidelity account that was not among the accounts listed in the will; the inherited land also was not mentioned in the will.
- Ann also wrote a later handwritten “Just a Note” stating she wanted James to receive all her property, including what she inherited, but the writing did not satisfy statutory will/codicil execution formalities.
- After Ann’s death in 2009, James (as personal representative) sought to have the after-acquired property distributed to him under the will; Ann’s nieces (children of a predeceased brother) contended the after-acquired property passed by intestacy.

## Issues

1. Whether Fla. Stat. § 732.6005(2) requires construing a will to dispose of after-acquired property not named or described in the will when the will contains no residuary clause or other dispositive provision covering that property.
2. Whether property not effectively disposed of by the will must pass under Florida intestacy statutes despite a general presumption against partial intestacy.
3. Whether an informal, later handwritten note can alter distributions when not executed with required testamentary formalities.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Florida approved the district court’s decision and answered the certified question “no.”
- Section 732.6005(2) did not compel distribution of the after-acquired land and new Fidelity account under the will because the will did not describe them and included no residuary clause.
- The disputed after-acquired property passed by intestacy to the decedent’s heirs, including the nieces.
- The “Just a Note” had no testamentary effect because it was not executed as a valid will or codicil.

## Legal Principles

- The testator’s intent controls only as expressed in the validly executed will; rules of construction do not supply dispositive language absent from the instrument.
- Fla. Stat. § 732.6005(2) is a rule of construction for wills that already purport to dispose of the estate; it does not create or imply a residuary clause or otherwise dispose of property the will does not address.
- Partial intestacy is permitted; under Fla. Stat. § 732.101(1), any portion of an estate not effectively disposed of by will passes to intestate heirs.
- A writing intended to function as a will or codicil must comply with statutory execution formalities; an informal note, even if signed and expressing intent, is unenforceable if not properly executed.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court held that a will listing only specific assets, without a residuary clause, does not dispose of after-acquired property that is not named or described; such property passes by intestacy, and an improperly executed handwritten note cannot change that result.


Aldrich v. Basile, 136 So. 3d 530 (Fla. 2014)