## Facts

- Christel McPeak had an attorney prepare a will, a durable power of attorney, and a living will/health care surrogate designation.
- At the execution meeting, McPeak signed multiple originals of the living will and the durable power of attorney but did not sign the will.
- The will contained only McPeak’s typewritten name above the signature line; two attesting witnesses signed beneath the typewritten name.
- McPeak did not direct anyone to sign the will on her behalf.
- After McPeak’s death, Bonnie Allen (a niece and named beneficiary under the unsigned will) and Margarete Dalk (a half-sister who would inherit by intestacy) filed competing petitions for administration.
- The probate court admitted the will to probate on a “ratification” theory and alternatively ruled a constructive trust should be imposed for Allen if the will was not admitted.
- The district court of appeal reversed, holding the will invalid for lack of execution formalities and rejecting a constructive trust as an end-run around will-execution requirements.
- The Florida Supreme Court accepted review on a certified question asking whether a constructive trust may be imposed to honor an invalidly executed will that clearly expresses the decedent’s intent.

## Issues

1. Whether a court may impose a constructive trust over estate assets for a beneficiary named in an invalidly executed will when the defect resulted from a mistake in execution and the instrument appears to express the decedent’s intent.
2. Whether a typewritten name can satisfy Florida’s testator-signature requirement absent evidence the testator intended it to serve as her signature.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court answered the certified question in the negative and approved the district court’s decision.
- The Court held the will was invalid because McPeak neither signed it nor directed another to sign it in her presence.
- The Court rejected the probate court’s “ratification” theory because there was no evidence McPeak intended the typewritten name to function as her signature.
- The Court held a constructive trust could not be imposed solely to carry out the terms of an invalidly executed will.
- The estate therefore passed by intestacy rather than under the unsigned will.

## Legal Principles

- Testamentary intent is given effect only through a will executed in compliance with Florida’s statutory formalities, including the testator’s signature (or a signature by another at the testator’s direction and in the testator’s presence) and attestation by two witnesses.
- A constructive trust is an equitable remedy aimed at preventing unjust enrichment from fraud, abuse of confidence, or comparable wrongful conduct; it cannot be used to supply missing statutory elements of will execution.
- Equity may address mistakes affecting the operation or revocation of an otherwise validly executed testamentary instrument, but it cannot treat an instrument that never met execution requirements as legally effective.

## Conclusion

Florida courts may not use a constructive trust to transfer estate assets according to an unsigned, improperly executed will, even if the document seems to reflect the decedent’s intended distribution and the failure to comply with formalities resulted from an execution mistake.


Allen v. Dalk, 826 So. 2d 245 (Fla. 2002)