## Facts

- In 2003, Arlene Matthews-Walton executed a will distributing proceeds from the sale of her Key West home among five children, but giving one child (Marvalene) 4% and the other four children 24% each.
- The will also devised a vacant lot solely to another child (Navarro) and left the residue equally among the children except Marvalene, who received none of the residue.
- Evidence showed Navarro had a close relationship with the decedent and provided personal and financial care over many years.
- Evidence also showed longstanding conflict between the decedent and Marvalene arising from an unpaid 1989 loan secured by a mortgage on the decedent’s home, which the decedent resented.
- After the decedent died in 2017, Navarro petitioned for formal administration of the 2003 will.
- Marvalene and others objected, ultimately trying the case only on undue influence.
- The parties stipulated that the statutory presumption of undue influence applied and that Navarro bore the burden to prove lack of undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence.
- After trial (including testimony from the drafting attorney), the probate court admitted the will to probate and appointed a personal representative.

## Issues

1. Whether the probate court correctly applied the statutory presumption of undue influence and allocated the burden of proof to the will’s proponent under § 733.107(2), Florida Statutes.
2. Whether the proponent proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the will was not procured by undue influence.
3. Whether the probate court’s undue influence findings were supported by competent substantial evidence, requiring affirmance on appeal.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the final judgment admitting the 2003 will to probate.
- The court held the probate court properly applied § 733.107(2) and, consistent with the parties’ stipulation, required Navarro to rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence.
- The court held competent substantial evidence supported the probate court’s finding that Navarro rebutted the presumption, including evidence of the decedent’s independent reasons for disfavoring Marvalene and evidence supporting voluntary execution.

## Legal Principles

- Under § 733.107(2), Florida Statutes, once a presumption of undue influence applies, the burden shifts to the will proponent to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the will was not procured by undue influence.
- Appellate review of the legal operation and application of evidentiary presumptions is de novo.
- A trial court’s factual findings on undue influence are reviewed for competent substantial evidence; appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or second-guess credibility determinations supported by the record.

## Conclusion

The judgment admitting the will to probate was affirmed because the probate court correctly applied the undue influence presumption and its finding that the proponent rebutted the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence was supported by competent substantial evidence.


Hannibal v. Navarro, 317 So. 3d 1179 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021)