## Facts

- Florence I. Shifflet executed a typewritten will and a codicil that were validly executed and attested under Florida law.
- Paragraph 7 of the will made bequests to her brothers-in-law, Leroy Shifflet and Woodrow Shifflet.
- After her husband’s death, Florence altered the documents by:
  - crossing out the Paragraph 7 bequests to Leroy and Woodrow and handwriting substitute beneficiaries (three relatives) above the struck language;
  - crossing out the codicil in its entirety.
- Florence initialed the changes in the margins as “F.I.S.”
- Two witnesses signed in the margins next to the changes, in Florence’s presence and in the presence of each other.
- Florence and the witnesses did not sign “at the end” of the will in connection with the alterations; only the original execution signatures appeared at the end.
- The administratrix, Ruth Jones, sought probate of the instruments as altered; Leroy and Woodrow contested, arguing the alterations were legally ineffective.
- The probate court admitted the will and codicil in their original form, disregarding the handwritten changes; Jones appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether handwritten interlineations and cancellations to a duly executed will, initialed by the testatrix and marginally witnessed, are effective to partially revoke or modify the will when the alterations are not signed by the testatrix at the end as required by statute.
2. Whether crossing out a codicil and substituting new beneficiaries through handwritten changes constitutes a testamentary act requiring re-execution with will formalities.

## Decision

- The District Court of Appeal of Florida affirmed.
- The court held the handwritten alterations and cancellations were ineffective because they did not satisfy the statutory requirement that the will be signed at the end.
- The will and codicil were to be probated and enforced as originally executed, without regard to the interlineations and cancellations.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory will-execution formalities must be strictly satisfied for testamentary dispositions and for later acts that operate as modifications or partial revocations.
- Where a statute requires the testator’s signature “at the end” of the instrument, changes intended to alter dispositive provisions must also comply with that requirement.
- Marginal initials and marginal witness signatures do not substitute for an end-of-instrument signature and attestation sufficient to effect a new testamentary disposition.
- Handwritten changes that substitute beneficiaries are treated as an attempted new testamentary disposition and are ineffective unless executed with the formalities required for a will or codicil.

## Conclusion

The court enforced the will and codicil as originally executed, holding that marginally initialed and witnessed handwritten changes—absent a signature at the end satisfying statutory execution requirements—cannot partially revoke or modify a valid will.


Jones v. Shifflet (In re Estate of Shifflet), 170 So. 2d 96 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1964)