## Facts

- A father executed a will naming his daughter, Lydia Hamilton, as sole beneficiary.
- During his last illness, the father allegedly told Hamilton where the will was kept in another house and directed her to bring it to him so he could destroy it.
- Hamilton allegedly pretended she could not find the will, though she had located it and kept it.
- After the father’s death, Hamilton caused the will to be admitted to probate and took the estate under the will.
- The decedent’s collateral heirs filed an equity action alleging Hamilton’s deception prevented revocation and seeking to impose a constructive trust in their favor.
- The trial court sustained a demurrer and dismissed the complaint; the heirs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether an oral instruction to retrieve a will so the testator could destroy it, coupled with the devisee’s alleged obstruction, constitutes an effective revocation under Florida law.
2. Whether equity may impose a constructive trust on property passing under a probated will based solely on allegations that the devisee prevented the testator from carrying out an unexecuted intent to revoke.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on demurrer.
- The allegations did not establish a revocation accomplished in a legally authorized manner.
- The allegations were insufficient to justify imposing a constructive trust to alter the distribution under the probated will.

## Legal Principles

- Revocation of a will must occur through methods authorized by statute (e.g., prescribed physical acts or a later duly executed instrument); intent alone does not revoke a will.
- Equity will not treat an unperformed intent to revoke as though statutory revocation formalities were satisfied.
- A constructive trust may be available when recognized fraud-based doctrines apply (e.g., fraud procuring the testamentary disposition or a confidential/secret-trust type undertaking), but not merely because a beneficiary allegedly impeded revocation.
- After probate, the devisee holds legal title under the will, and displacement of that title in equity requires well-pleaded facts fitting established trust or fraud doctrines.

## Conclusion

Because the complaint alleged only a thwarted intent to revoke—not a revocation completed by legally required acts—and did not plead a recognized equitable basis to treat the devisee as a trustee, the court refused to disturb the probate result and left the estate with the sole beneficiary under the will.


Moneyham v. Hamilton, 124 Fla. 430, 168 So. 522 (Fla. 1936)