## Facts

- Vanchester Broxton died intestate; Bernice Broxton Johnson served as personal representative of his estate.
- Delores Thomas Brown and Adolphus Thomas, Jr. petitioned in probate to be recognized as Broxton’s lineal descendants and inherit as his grandchildren.
- Petitioners’ mother, Lillian Thomas Carthon, was born while her mother (Ethel Williams) was married to Columbus Johner.
- Petitioners alleged Broxton was Lillian’s natural father, which would make them Broxton’s grandchildren; other evidence suggested Johner was Lillian’s father and Broxton could not have been present at conception.
- Lillian, Ethel, and Broxton were deceased by the time of the probate proceeding, leaving third-party testimony and circumstantial evidence.
- Petitioners introduced a letter from Broxton to Delores referring to her as his “granddaughter,” offered as a written acknowledgment supporting their claimed lineage.
- The probate court found the evidence insufficient to establish Lillian as Broxton’s child and denied petitioners’ claim to share in the estate.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence, including Broxton’s letter and witness testimony, was sufficient to prove Lillian was Broxton’s natural child for intestate heirship purposes.
2. Whether Florida law permits lineal descendants to challenge an ancestor’s legitimacy (i.e., to displace the marital presumption of paternity) to obtain inheritance rights.

## Decision

- The District Court of Appeal affirmed the probate court’s order denying petitioners heirship.
- The court held petitioners did not present competent evidence sufficient to overcome the strong presumption that a child born during marriage is the husband’s legitimate child.
- The court rejected the attempt by descendants to litigate legitimacy retroactively to create a different line of descent for financial benefit.
- The court concluded the letter referring to “granddaughter,” in the face of conflicting proof and the marital presumption, was not dispositive of biological paternity.

## Legal Principles

- A child born to a married woman is presumed to be the legitimate child of her husband; rebuttal requires strong proof, not conjecture or doubtful testimony.
- Florida law does not recognize standing for a child or more remote lineal descendant to “bastardize” an ancestor through judicial proceedings to increase inheritance.
- Informal acknowledgments of family relationship (e.g., using kinship terms in correspondence) are insufficient, standing alone, to rebut the marital presumption and establish paternity for intestate succession.

## Conclusion

Because Lillian was born during her mother’s marriage and petitioners could not rebut the legitimacy presumption with competent, persuasive evidence, and because descendants could not attack an ancestor’s legitimacy to create heirship, petitioners were not entitled to inherit from Broxton’s intestate estate.


Brown v. Johnson (In re Estate of Broxton), 425 So. 2d 23 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 1982)