## Facts

- Coketine Bray Carpenter, a widow, had four adult children: daughter Mary and sons Ben, Sam, and Bill.
- The decedent repeatedly expressed an intent to divide her estate equally among her four children; no ordinary intervening event explained a departure from that intent.
- During the decedent’s final illness, a new will was prepared by an attorney and executed in the hospital four days before her death.
- The will was formally executed with two attesting witnesses and was not challenged for lack of testamentary capacity.
- The new will left the entire estate to Mary and disinherited the three sons.
- Evidence showed Mary was in a confidential relationship with the decedent and played an active role in arranging the will’s preparation and execution, while also being the sole beneficiary.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to raise a presumption of undue influence based on a substantial beneficiary’s confidential relationship and active procurement of the will.
2. Whether the presumption shifts the ultimate burden of persuasion to the will proponent or only the burden of producing evidence.
3. Whether rebuttal of the presumption removes from consideration the underlying facts that created it.
4. Whether the appellate court could overturn the trial court’s undue-influence finding when supported by competent, substantial evidence.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court quashed the district court’s decision and remanded with directions to reinstate the county judge’s order denying probate.
- The Court held the evidence raised a presumption of undue influence because Mary was a substantial beneficiary, had a confidential relationship with the testatrix, and actively procured the will.
- The Court held the presumption shifts only the burden of going forward with a reasonable explanation, not the ultimate burden of proof.
- The Court held the facts giving rise to the presumption remain evidence and may support an inference of undue influence even after the presumption is met with rebuttal evidence.
- The Court concluded the trial court’s finding of undue influence was supported by competent, substantial evidence and could not be displaced by appellate reweighing.

## Legal Principles

- A presumption of undue influence arises when (1) a substantial beneficiary (2) stands in a confidential relationship with the testator and (3) is active in procuring the contested will.
- A confidential relationship may exist beyond formal fiduciary categories and can arise from trust and reliance in informal dealings.
- “Active procurement” may be shown by circumstances such as the beneficiary’s involvement in securing counsel, directing preparation, arranging execution, knowledge of contents, presence at execution, and control over the will’s handling.
- In will contests, the presumption of undue influence shifts only the burden of producing evidence (a reasonable explanation), while the contestant retains the ultimate burden of persuasion by a preponderance of the evidence.
- Rebuttal of the presumption does not erase the underlying circumstances; those facts remain in the case as substantive evidence supporting a permissible inference of undue influence.
- Appellate courts must defer to trial-level factfinding and may not substitute their judgment where the record contains competent, substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s inference.

## Conclusion

The court reaffirmed that undue influence may be inferred from a substantial beneficiary’s confidential relationship and active procurement, clarified that the resulting presumption shifts only the burden of production, and required deference to the trial judge’s supported finding that the will was void for undue influence.


In re Estate of Carpenter, 253 So. 2d 697 (Fla. 1971)