## Facts

- Shirley “Sunshine” Levin executed a 1987 will dividing her estate equally between her two children, Gail and William.
- On May 22, 2008, Shirley executed a new will and trust naming William as personal representative and trustee, giving Gail $350,000, providing specified distributions for William’s children, and leaving the remainder to William.
- Shirley died on August 16, 2008; the 2008 will was admitted to probate, and evidence indicated the estate exceeded $3 million.
- Gail objected to administration and challenged the 2008 will and trust, alleging (among other grounds) undue influence by William and that Shirley acted under an insane delusion that she had not seen Gail in more than ten years.
- Before trial, Gail sought a continuance based on impending surgery and late-received psychiatric records; the court denied the continuance but arranged for Gail to participate by telephone.
- After trial, the court found no undue influence, found testamentary capacity, and found no presumption of undue influence, but did not expressly decide whether Shirley suffered from an insane delusion when executing the 2008 instruments.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred in finding no presumption of undue influence and no undue influence regarding the 2008 will and trust.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Gail’s motion for continuance and excluding her expert witness.
3. Whether the trial court erred by failing to determine whether Shirley suffered from an insane delusion at execution and whether it affected the dispositive provisions.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the rulings that there was no presumption of undue influence and no undue influence.
- The appellate court affirmed the denial of the continuance and the exclusion of Gail’s expert witness, finding no abuse of discretion.
- The appellate court reversed in part and remanded for the trial court to determine from the record, or after an evidentiary hearing, whether Shirley suffered from an insane delusion at the time she executed the 2008 will and trust.

## Legal Principles

- A presumption of undue influence in a testamentary plan requires proof, including that the beneficiary was active in procuring the will or trust; absent such proof, the presumption does not arise.
- Denial of a continuance and related trial-management decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion; accommodations mitigating prejudice support affirmance.
- A will (and related dispositive instruments) may be invalid to the extent it is the product of an insane delusion: a fixed false belief without basis in reality, maintained despite contrary evidence, that materially affects the disposition.
- When an insane-delusion theory is properly raised and supported by evidence, the trial court must make findings addressing whether the delusion existed at execution and whether it affected the testamentary scheme.

## Conclusion

The appellate court left intact the trial court’s findings rejecting undue influence and upholding trial-management rulings, but required a limited remand for specific findings on whether the decedent executed the 2008 will and trust under an insane delusion that affected the distribution.


Levin v. Levin, 60 So. 3d 1116 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 4th Dist. 2011)