## Facts

- Daniel K. Weiskopf executed a formal will that was admitted to probate without dispute.
- Shortly before death, while “desperately, incurably ill,” Weiskopf was under heavy medication for pain (including sedatives and narcotics) and was described as drowsy, confused at times, and sometimes semi-comatose.
- In his hospital room, Weiskopf asked his nurse to summon his secretary so he could “fix his will” and dictated proposed additions, including:
  - $100,000 to Grace Vignes (already a beneficiary under the prior will),
  - $30,000 to “you” (creating uncertainty as to the intended recipient), and
  - $100,000 to another person whose name he could not recall.
- The secretary relayed these notes to Weiskopf’s attorney, who sought clarification but could not obtain definite information from the secretary or Weiskopf.
- The attorney nonetheless drafted a codicil and returned the next day; Weiskopf signed it in the hospital room, and the attorney, the attorney’s wife, and the nurse signed as witnesses.
- The codicil was neither read by Weiskopf nor read aloud to him before signing, and it was promptly sealed and delivered to the secretary for safekeeping until after death.
- The nurse testified she could not be sure Weiskopf knew what he was signing and observed drowsiness and confusion linked to medication.
- The county judge denied probate of the codicil; the circuit court affirmed; Vignes appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the proponent established that the deathbed codicil reflected a knowing, conscious, and sufficiently definite testamentary act despite the testator’s condition, unclear instructions, and the failure to read or explain the instrument before execution.
2. Whether the probate court and circuit court erred in refusing to admit the codicil to probate.

## Decision

- The Florida Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment upholding denial of probate of the codicil.
- The Court concluded the evidence did not show the codicil was the product of a clear and knowing testamentary act.
- The Court treated the circumstances of execution—grave illness, heavy medication, uncertain instructions, and the instrument not being read or explained—as supporting the lower courts’ refusal to probate.

## Legal Principles

- A will or codicil is not entitled to probate unless the proponent shows the testator possessed testamentary capacity at execution and understood the nature of the act and its effect.
- Execution formalities alone do not suffice where surrounding circumstances cast doubt on whether the testator knew and approved the instrument’s contents.
- When a testamentary instrument is prepared from incomplete or confused instructions and is not read by or to a gravely ill, medicated testator, courts may require strong proof that the signed document accurately expresses the testator’s intent.
- Appellate review will not disturb a denial of probate where the evidentiary record supports the finding that the instrument was not shown to be an informed testamentary disposition.

## Conclusion

The court left the earlier will in effect and refused to probate the deathbed codicil because the proponent did not demonstrate that the testator, under heavy medication and amid uncertain instructions, knowingly approved and intended the contents of the codicil he signed without it being read or explained to him.


Vignes v. Weiskopf, 42 So. 2d 84 (Fla. 1949)