## Facts

- Robert E. Lowy executed a six-page will (four dispositive pages and two signature pages) on January 27, 1982.
- Lowy died on March 8, 1982, and the will was admitted to probate in circuit court on March 24, 1982, without opposition.
- The testator’s and two witnesses’ signatures appeared only on the last two pages.
- The widow, Onelia Padron Lowy, later alleged that the first four pages filed in probate were substituted after execution and that a dispositive provision (“Paragraph Fifth”) was changed.
- Onelia claimed the executed will gave her all furniture and personal property outright, while the probated version limited that gift to items within a specific Miami residence.
- The residuary estate allegedly remained split 60% to Onelia and 40% to the niece, Carol Roberts, but narrowing the specific gift would increase the residue and Roberts’s share.
- Onelia asserted the testator signed and initialed all six pages at execution and provided a purported conformed copy reflecting the broader Paragraph Fifth.
- She also alleged physical evidence of substitution: the signature pages had additional staple holes not found on the first four pages admitted to probate.

## Issues

1. Whether a petition seeking to establish the true contents of a will already admitted to probate is an untimely “will contest” barred by statutory time limits.
2. Whether alleged post-execution substitutions or alterations render the will invalid, or instead permit the probate court to determine and enforce the will as actually executed.

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded.
- The petition was not time-barred because it did not attack the will’s validity as executed; it sought to determine and enforce the will’s true contents.
- Alleged post-execution substitutions or alterations do not automatically invalidate the will as executed; the proper inquiry is what document was executed.
- An evidentiary hearing was required to resolve factual disputes about possible page substitution and the content of the will at execution.

## Legal Principles

- A proceeding to establish the true contents of an admitted will is distinct from a will contest challenging validity or admission to probate and is not subject to time limits applicable to contests of validity.
- Post-execution mutilations, substitutions, or insertions do not void an otherwise validly executed will; the controlling instrument is the will as executed.
- A probate court may determine and enforce the “actual will” by rejecting spurious material and reconstructing or restoring the original text proved to have been executed.
- When pleadings and alleged physical evidence raise a factual dispute over whether the filed pages match those executed, dismissal on the pleadings is improper; fact-finding is required.

## Conclusion

The court held that a widow’s claim that an admitted will’s dispositive pages were substituted after execution was not a time-barred will contest and, if proven, would warrant enforcement of the will as executed rather than invalidation; the case was remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine the will’s true contents.


Lowy v. Roberts, 453 So. 2d 886 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1984)