## Facts

- Ruth W. Parker died, and the original of her will could not be located.
- The estate filed a petition to establish and probate a lost or destroyed will under § 733.207, Florida Statutes (1977).
- To prove the will’s contents, the estate offered a draft of the will as a purported “correct copy” and testimony supporting its accuracy.
- The circuit court ruled the draft was not a “correct copy” within the meaning of § 733.207(3) and declined to treat it as such.
- The district court of appeal reversed, concluding the draft was an accurate reproduction and certified a question on whether a “substantial copy” suffices.

## Issues

1. Under § 733.207(3), Fla. Stat. (1977), does “correct copy” mean an identical copy of the original lost will, or may it include a substantial but accurate draft?

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court quashed the district court of appeal’s decision.
- The Court held that “correct copy” in § 733.207(3) means an identical copy of the original will, not a substantial copy or draft.
- The Court approved the circuit court’s refusal to treat the draft as a statutory “correct copy,” leaving the proponent to meet the two-disinterested-witness method to prove contents.

## Legal Principles

- A lost or destroyed will is presumed to have been destroyed by the testator with intent to revoke; the proponent bears the burden to overcome that presumption.
- Under § 733.207(3) (1977), the contents of a lost or destroyed will must be proved either by two disinterested witnesses, or by one disinterested witness plus a “correct copy.”
- “Correct copy” requires an identical, verbatim reproduction (a true duplicate) of the original instrument; a draft or reconstructed version does not qualify.
- The “one witness plus correct copy” option is a limited exception to the two-witness requirement and is construed narrowly to protect against fraud and uncertainty in lost-will probate.

## Conclusion

The Florida Supreme Court interpreted § 733.207(3) to require an identical copy to invoke the reduced proof method for a lost will’s contents, rejecting use of a draft as a “correct copy” and restoring the stricter evidentiary safeguard of two disinterested witnesses absent a true duplicate.


In re Estate of Parker, 382 So. 2d 652 (Fla. 1980)