## Facts

- On March 20, 2003, Barbara Annette French executed a will naming her friend, Terry Glenn, as personal representative and residuary beneficiary.
- Article THIRD devised “all of the rest, residue and remainder” of French’s estate to Glenn, adding that she did so “having full confidence he will honor all requests made to him by me prior to my death as to friends whom I desire he benefit.”
- Article FIFTH stated French had “carefully and thoughtfully considered each member of my family and all of my friends” and had not unintentionally omitted anyone, directing that “only those beneficiaries named herein” share in her probate estate.
- French died on July 7, 2010, and Glenn commenced probate administration.
- Dawn Roberts, French’s grandchild and asserted intestate heir-at-law, filed a petition to set aside the will, contending the residuary clause was invalid because it effectively incorporated unwritten oral instructions about distributing assets to unnamed friends.
- Roberts sought distribution of the residuary estate under Florida intestacy statutes and relied on precedent addressing attempts to effectuate testamentary transfers through oral directions.
- The circuit court granted Roberts’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and ordered the residuary estate distributed by intestate succession.
- Glenn appealed to the Florida Third District Court of Appeal.

## Issues

1. Whether the residuary devise to Glenn was rendered invalid by the clause stating the testator had “full confidence” Glenn would honor requests made before death regarding friends the testator wanted him to benefit.
2. Whether that language constituted an impermissible oral testamentary disposition (or otherwise defeated Florida’s will-formality requirements) such that the residuary estate had to pass by intestacy.
3. Whether Roberts was clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the pleadings based solely on the text of the will.

## Decision

- The Third District Court of Appeal reversed the judgment on the pleadings and remanded.
- Reading the will as a whole, the court concluded Article THIRD made a complete, unambiguous written gift of the entire residuary estate to Glenn.
- The “full confidence” phrase was treated as precatory language—an expression of the testator’s hope or expectation—rather than a condition that limited the gift or a separate, enforceable distribution scheme dependent on oral instructions.
- Article FIFTH reinforced the testator’s intent to exclude anyone not named in the will and supported enforcing the written residuary devise rather than ordering intestacy.
- Because the will facially contained a valid residuary devise, Roberts was not clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and intestate distribution was improperly ordered.

## Legal Principles

- A judgment on the pleadings is appropriate only when the moving party is clearly entitled to judgment as a matter of law based on the pleadings.
- The testator’s intent is determined from the will’s text, construed as a whole; when the language is clear and unambiguous, courts enforce the will as written.
- A complete residuary devise is not defeated merely because the testator adds language expressing confidence, hope, or a request about how the beneficiary may use the gift; such precatory wording does not, by itself, create a binding condition or a separate testamentary transfer.
- Florida’s requirement that testamentary dispositions comply with statutory formalities is not violated when the dispositive transfer is fully set out in the written will and does not depend on extrinsic oral directions to identify beneficiaries or determine what property passes.
- Intestacy is a default only when the will fails to make an effective disposition; it is not a substitute for enforcing a valid written residuary clause.

## Conclusion

The Third District held that French’s will unambiguously left the residuary estate to Glenn and that the added “full confidence” language did not convert the devise into an invalid oral disposition or require intestate distribution; accordingly, the trial court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings and ordering intestacy, and the case was reversed and remanded.


Glenn v. Roberts, 95 So. 3d 271 (2012)