## Facts

- Rene R. Azcunce executed a will (May 4, 1983) creating a trust for his surviving spouse and his then-living children (Lisette, Natalie, and Gabriel) and made no provision for later-born children.
- He executed a first codicil (Aug. 8, 1983) reaffirming or republishing the will.
- His daughter Patricia was born (Mar. 14, 1984), after the will and first codicil.
- He executed a second codicil (June 25, 1986) that expressly reaffirmed and republished the will but did not mention Patricia or provide for her.
- Counsel prepared an unsigned draft new will that would have included Patricia, but the testator never executed it.
- The testator died unexpectedly (Dec. 30, 1986) with the 1983 will and codicils as his executed testamentary instruments.
- Patricia petitioned in probate to take an intestate share as a pretermitted child under Florida’s statute; the trial court denied relief, and she appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a child born after the original will, but alive when a later codicil expressly republishes the will, qualifies as a pretermitted child under Florida law.
2. Whether republication by codicil resets the operative “execution” date for applying the pretermitted-child statute.
3. Whether extrinsic evidence (including an unexecuted draft will) may be used to show the omission was unintentional where the executed will and codicils are unambiguous.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the order denying Patricia a statutory share.
- The court held that the second codicil’s express republication treated the will as executed as of the codicil’s date.
- Because Patricia was living when the republishing codicil was executed, she was not “after-born” relative to the operative testamentary instrument and therefore was not a pretermitted child.
- The court refused to admit parol evidence to alter the effect of the unambiguous executed instruments.

## Legal Principles

- A codicil that expressly republishes a will re-executes the will as of the codicil’s date; the will speaks from the date of the last republishing codicil.
- Florida’s pretermitted-child statute protects children born or adopted after execution of the operative will and not provided for, absent an intentional-omission indication appearing from the instrument.
- When a testator republishes a will by codicil while a child is already living and still makes no provision for that child, the child is treated as outside the statute’s protection.
- Where the executed will and codicils are unambiguous, parol evidence (including unexecuted drafts and asserted explanations) is inadmissible to vary their legal effect.

## Conclusion

A child born after an original will is not entitled to a pretermitted-child share if the testator later executes a codicil that expressly republishes the will while the child is living, and the executed instruments unambiguously omit the child.


Azcunce v. Est. of Azcunce, 586 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1991)