## Facts

- Christel D. McPeak died on May 7, 1999.
- Before her death, her attorney prepared a will (one original and four duplicate originals), a durable power of attorney, and a living will/health-care surrogate document.
- At an execution meeting, McPeak stated that the will reflected her testamentary intent and that the “original will” was to be her last will and testament.
- McPeak signed the power of attorney and living will documents, and the witnesses and a notary signed those documents.
- By mistake, McPeak did not sign the will later offered for probate, and she did not direct anyone to sign it for her.
- The will contained a blank signature line for the testatrix with a typewritten name beneath it; the witnesses and notary executed the attestation/self-proving portions.
- Bonnie Allen (the decedent’s niece) submitted the unsigned will for probate; Margarete Dalk (the decedent’s half-sister) objected.
- The probate court admitted the will, reasoning that McPeak “ratified” the typed name, and alternatively stated a constructive trust should be imposed for Allen if the will could not be probated.

## Issues

1. Whether a will is validly executed under Florida Statutes § 732.502 when the testator does not sign the will and does not direct another to sign, despite a typewritten name appearing beneath a blank signature line.
2. Whether a probate court may impose a constructive trust to transfer estate assets according to an invalidly executed will that clearly expressed the decedent’s intent but failed statutory execution formalities due to mistake.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the order admitting the will to probate.
- The court held the will was not properly executed under § 732.502 because it lacked the testatrix’s signature and lacked a signature subscribed by another at her direction.
- The court rejected the probate court’s “ratification” rationale because there was no evidence the decedent intended the typewritten name to function as her signature.
- The court rejected the imposition of a constructive trust because it would effectively validate an invalid will.
- The court certified a question of great public importance to the Florida Supreme Court concerning whether a constructive trust may be used in these circumstances.

## Legal Principles

- Florida Statutes § 732.502 requires a will to be signed at the end by the testator, or for the testator’s name to be subscribed by another person in the testator’s presence and at the testator’s direction.
- Clear testamentary intent does not substitute for statutory execution requirements; absent the required signing, the instrument is not a valid will.
- A typewritten name below a blank signature line is not a “signature” for will-execution purposes without evidence the testator intended it to serve as such.
- Equity may not be used to avoid will-execution statutes; a constructive trust cannot be imposed merely to carry out the terms of an invalid will.

## Conclusion

The court required strict compliance with Florida’s will-execution statute, held the unsigned instrument invalid, reversed its admission to probate, and refused to use a constructive trust to distribute the estate according to the invalid document.


Dalk v. Allen, 774 So. 2d 787 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 5th Dist. 2000)