## Facts

- Richard Blinn, an elderly testator, developed progressive dementia, paranoia, and serious physical infirmities beginning in 2005.
- In 2006, Richard executed a will leaving his entire estate to his daughter, Patricia A. Carlman (“Patty”).
- In August 2007, Richard married Demetra F. Blinn, his fourth wife.
- After the marriage, Demetra increasingly controlled Richard’s finances and personal affairs and displaced Patty’s prior caregiving role.
- Trial evidence indicated Demetra exploited Richard’s mental condition to alienate him from his children, including recorded communications portraying her as aggressively pressuring Richard to believe Patty was stealing from him.
- On April 2, 2008, Richard executed a new will revoking prior plans and leaving his entire estate to Demetra.
- The circumstances of preparation and execution were contested and treated as suspicious; attorney testimony indicated Demetra, not Richard, was the primary point of contact and that the drafting attorney was uncomfortable with how the will came to be executed.
- After execution, Demetra sought to append an older physician letter concerning Richard’s mental state from an earlier date and took steps to change non-probate beneficiary designations in her favor.
- In 2011, Richard was adjudicated legally incompetent; Patty was appointed guardian based on findings of failed mental capacity and vulnerability to undue influence.
- While Richard was later hospitalized with severe dementia, Demetra requested a durable power of attorney in her favor and indicated she would arrange for execution formalities.

## Issues

1. Whether substantial competent evidence supported the probate court’s finding that the April 2, 2008 will was the product of undue influence.
2. Whether the appellate court was required to affirm the judgment invalidating the 2008 will given the deferential standard of review in will contests.

## Decision

- The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed the final judgment invalidating the April 2, 2008 will for undue influence.
- The court held the probate court’s findings were supported by substantial competent evidence and were not shown to reflect a misapprehension of the evidence as a whole.
- The court accepted that undue influence may be proven by circumstantial evidence and that the totality of circumstances supported the conclusion that Richard’s free agency was overcome.

## Legal Principles

- A probate court’s factual findings in a will contest are not overturned on appeal if supported by substantial competent evidence, absent a showing that the trial judge misapprehended the evidence as a whole.
- Undue influence requires influence amounting to overpersuasion, duress, force, coercion, or fraudulent contrivance that destroys the testator’s free agency so that the instrument reflects another’s will rather than the testator’s.
- Because undue influence is rarely exercised openly, it may be established through indirect, circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences from facts and surrounding circumstances.
- In assessing whether a beneficiary actively procured a will, courts may consider nonexclusive factors, including the beneficiary’s role in initiating will-making, selecting or communicating with counsel, providing instructions, knowing contents before execution, securing witnesses, and controlling the document after execution.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed invalidation of a will that radically favored a new spouse over prior beneficiaries, concluding that substantial competent evidence—Richard’s cognitive vulnerability, Demetra’s control and isolating conduct, and suspicious procurement circumstances—supported the probate court’s finding of undue influence.


Blinn v. Carlman, 159 So. 3d 390 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)