## Facts

- Catherine S. Carter executed a 1971 will leaving the residue of her estate to her three sons in equal one-third shares.
- In 1975, she executed a codicil reducing son Carl Ray Carter, Jr.’s one-third share and dividing that portion among Carl, his former wife Virginia, and their four children (including David).
- In 1983, Catherine executed a new will returning to equal one-third shares for each of her three sons.
- Catherine died in 1985.
- In the period preceding the 1983 will, sons Carl and James were heavily involved in Catherine’s affairs, including assistance with finances, household maintenance, and physical needs.
- James discussed with Catherine whether she wished to change her estate plan; she stated she wanted a new will reverting to equal shares for her sons.
- James arranged for an attorney to draft a will consistent with Catherine’s instructions and provided the draft to her.
- Carl later took Catherine to a different attorney’s office, where she executed the 1983 will in the presence of two disinterested witnesses.
- Virginia and David petitioned to revoke probate of the 1983 will, alleging undue influence by Carl and James in procuring it.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence supported revocation of the 1983 will for undue influence under Florida’s presumption requiring (a) a confidential relationship, (b) a substantial benefit to the alleged influencer, and (c) active procurement.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the order revoking probate of the 1983 will.
- A confidential relationship between the sons and the testatrix was conceded.
- As to James, the presumption failed because he did not become a substantial beneficiary as a result of the 1983 will; he received the same one-third share under each relevant estate plan.
- As to Carl, even assuming he became a substantial beneficiary due to the 1983 will restoring his one-third share, the record did not show influence rising to the level of “undue.”
- The court rejected the theory that James’s alleged influence could be treated as a third-party conduit to establish undue influence benefiting Carl, absent satisfaction of the required elements.
- The 1983 will was reinstated.

## Legal Principles

- A presumption of undue influence in the procurement of a will requires proof that the alleged influencer (1) had a confidential relationship with the testator, (2) was a substantial beneficiary under the contested will, and (3) was active in procuring the will.
- The “substantial beneficiary” element requires that the alleged influencer receive a substantial benefit as a result of the challenged will; receiving the same share under prior and contested instruments defeats this element.
- Family assistance and involvement in an elderly parent’s affairs, without evidence that the testator’s free agency was overborne, does not establish undue influence.

## Conclusion

The appellate court held that the contestants failed to establish undue influence under Florida’s presumption framework and reinstated the 1983 will providing equal one-third shares to Catherine’s three sons.


Carter v. Carter, 526 So. 2d 141 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1988)