## Facts

- Andrew Tarsagian, age 77, began living with Sarah Tarsagian, age 62, after the death of his first wife; Sarah, a registered nurse, cared for him during extended illness.
- In early 1977, Andrew was seriously injured in an automobile accident, and he was diagnosed with leukemia during hospitalization.
- About one month after discharge, Andrew and Sarah married; shortly thereafter Andrew executed a will leaving his modest estate to Sarah rather than to his daughters, Flora Watt and Mary Pagel.
- Andrew died nearly two years after the marriage.
- The daughters sued to annul the marriage and to revoke probate of the will, alleging Sarah exerted undue influence.
- Sarah’s activities related to the will were limited to accompanying Andrew to a lawyer’s office, waiting outside while Andrew met with the lawyer, and later placing the executed will in her safe-deposit box while she handled many of his affairs.

## Issues

1. Whether the daughters rebutted the presumption favoring validity of a ceremonial marriage so as to annul Andrew’s marriage to Sarah.
2. Whether probate of the will should be revoked for undue influence, including whether a presumption of undue influence applies when the alleged influencer is the testator’s spouse.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the judgment refusing to annul the marriage because the presumption of marriage validity was not overcome.
- The appellate court reversed the judgment revoking probate of the will, holding the trial court’s undue-influence finding was unsupported by the evidence.
- The court reinstated probate of the will leaving the estate to Sarah.

## Legal Principles

- A ceremonial marriage is strongly presumed valid; the party attacking it bears the burden to produce sufficient evidence to overcome that presumption.
- A presumption of undue influence in a will contest arises when a substantial beneficiary both (a) stands in a confidential relationship with the testator and (b) is active in procuring the contested will.
- The ordinary confidential relationship between spouses is not treated as the “confidential relationship” required to invoke the undue-influence presumption in a will contest.
- Minimal involvement by a caregiving spouse—such as accompanying the testator to an attorney, waiting outside the consultation, and safeguarding the will—does not, without more, prove undue influence by a preponderance of the evidence.

## Conclusion

The court left the marriage intact under the strong presumption of validity and reinstated the will because the record did not support a finding that Sarah unduly influenced Andrew, and spousal status alone could not supply the confidential-relationship element needed to trigger a presumption of undue influence.


Tarsagian v. Watt, 402 So. 2d 471 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 3d Dist. 1981)