Florida/Georgia Personal Injury & Workers Compensation

...a. Stat. (1979), Sorrells v. McNally, 89 Fla. 457, 105 So. 106 (1925), our conclusion that the will evinces Sheldon's intent to substitute Fred in Marcella's place in the event that Marcella predeceased Sheldon prevents the lapse from occurring. See § 732.603(2), Fla. Stat. (1979). Had we been unable to reach this conclusion, then the bequest to Marcella would lapse, since she is not a blood relative of the testator, and her descendant would not be protected by the antilapse provision of Section 732.603(1), Florida Statutes (1979)....

...This left appellant as the sole beneficiary unless Steven Benson's children were allowed to participate. Judge Hayes determined that Florida's Slayer Statute did not prevent the minor children of Steven Benson from inheriting their father's share under the will of Margaret Benson under section 732.603, Florida Statutes (1985), nor from inheriting their father's share of Scott Benson's intestate estate according to the provisions of sections 732.103 and 732.104, Florida Statutes *777 (1985)....

...r children from sharing in either Margaret or Scott Benson's estates. In making that argument she urges that her interpretation of the Slayer Statute should prevail over the express terms of Margaret Benson's will, over Florida's Anti-Lapse Statute, section 732.603(1), and also over sections 732.611, 732.103 and 732.104, Florida Statutes (1985)....

...The trial judge misconstrued Margaret Benson's will as being ambiguous and then mistakenly relied upon the testimony from the Steven Benson murder trial to attempt to arrive at Margaret Benson's intent in regard to her testamentary disposition of her properties. He then applied our Anti-Lapse Statute, section 732.603, and concluded that Steven Benson's minor children were the successors to their father's share in Margaret Benson's estate....

...t Benson's will had provided for a class gift to her three children, the Anti-Lapse Statute would have substituted Steven Benson's minor children in his place as a devisee under the will in the absence of a contrary intent expressed in the will. See § 732.603(1), Fla....

...se statute "to the other residuary devisees in proportion to their interest in the residue." Two issues present themselves on appeal: first, whether the antilapse statute applies; and, second, if it does not apply, whether the lapse statute applies. Section 732.603, Florida Statutes (1979), the antilapse statute, reads in pertinent part: 732.603 Antilapse; Deceased Devisee; Class Gifts....

...(c) ... then the descendants of the devisee take per stirpes in place of the deceased devisee... . Section 732.604, Florida Statutes (1979), the lapse statute, states in whole: 732.604 Failure of Testamentary Provision. — (1) Except as provided in s. 732.603, if a devise other than a residuary devise fails for any reason, it becomes a part of the residue. (2) Except as provided in s. 732.603, if the residue is devised to two or more persons and the share of one of the residuary devisees fails for any reason, his share passes to the other residuary devisee, or to the other residuary devisees in proportion to their interests in the residue....

...ceased sister's share to her surviving sisters only if her surviving sisters survived him. A universal caveat in antilapse statutes is that their provisions yield to an adverse intention of the testator. The Florida *403 statute is no exception. See section 732.603....

...dren of his deceased sister, Robert and Diane have perfected this appeal. The appellants contend the trial court erred in the order determining heirs and beneficiaries because: a) the provisions of Section 732.611, Florida Statutes (1979), supersede Section 732.603, the anti-lapse statute; b) the finding is contrary to the intent of the testator; c) the rule concerning an incompleted adoption set out in Sheffield v....

...nstrued the applicable law. However, we will briefly discuss the first point. Therein appellants argue that Section 732.611, Florida Statutes (1979), which provides "[u]nless the will provides otherwise, all devises shall be per stirpes", supersedes Section 732.603, the effect of which is that a devise to one who predeceases a testator and who is not a grandparent or descendant of a grandparent of the testator lapses unless the will reflects an intention to substitute another in the place of the named devisee....

...testator the Legislature enacted the anti-lapse statute. Thus, to preclude the lapse of a devise to blood relatives, the Legislature provided that if the devise was to a grandparent or lineal descendant of a grandparent, the devise would not lapse. Section 732.603 substantially maintained the statutory law as it existed prior to its enactment relative to a devise to one not within the specified degree of blood relationship....

...half to the living children of Martin's deceased child. Appellants also maintain that, if the foregoing is correct, there was no reason to enact Section 732.611. We would answer that by pointing out that Section 732.611 applies to all devises while Section 732.603 relates only to those gifts in which the devisee has predeceased the testator....

the descendants of the legatee take the gift. § 732.603, Fla.Stat. Obviously, a stepdaughter is not a

...Teeple, 388 So. 2d 239, 239 (Fla. 2d DCA 1980) (“When a legatee under a will predeceases the benefactor, the gift lapses.” (citing Drafts v. Drafts, 114 So. 2d 473, 474 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959))). Florida does have an “antilapse” statute—codified at section 732.603, Florida Statutes—that, to some extent, ameliorates the effect of a gift lapsing under the common law; but the statute provides no relief here to Chauncy. Under the version of section 732.603 in effect when McNairy executed his 1998 Will—or, for that matter, the current version of the statute—a gift would not lapse if the predeceased devisee was either the grandparent or the descendant of a grandparent of the testator. In such circumstances, and in the absence of a contrary intent appearing in the will, the descendants of the predeceased devisee would receive or inherit per stirpes in place of the deceased devisee. See § 732.603(1), Fla....

apply, whether the lapse statute applies. Section 732.603, Florida Statutes (1979), the antilapse statute

the attempted devise and bequest lapsed. Section 732.603, Florida Statutes, the anti-lapse statute,

...In December 2009, the brother-in-law filed a petition for construction of the Testator's will, arguing that the bequest to the two deceased relatives, Jose and Juana R. Medina, lapsed, and therefore, he was entitled to an undivided interest in the property. The niece and nephew argued that pursuant to section 732.603(1), Florida Statutes (2008), the anti-lapse statute, they were entitled to a fifty percent share of the property....

...2d DCA 1980) ("When a legatee under a will predeceases the benefactor, the gift lapses."). The potentially harsh effects of this common law rule are ameliorated to an extent by the operation of statute. When the predeceased devisee is a descendant of the testator's grandparents, section 732.603 will "save" the lapsed gift by creating a substitute gift in the devisee's descendants. § 732.603(1). Because section 732.603 is in derogation of the common law, we must strictly construe its provisions....

...Medina, however, also predeceased the Testator. Pursuant to the common law rule outlined above, the bequest lapsed. And because Juana R. Medina is not a descendant of the Testator's grandparents, the niece and nephew cannot invoke the operation of section 732.603(1) to "save" the bequest and provide them with a substitute gift....

statutes. The first was the antilapse statute, Section 732.603, Florida Statutes (1979), which reads as follows:

...ly disposed of by will.” The provision of section 732.101(1), Florida Statutes (1999), was applicable because Irving Faskowitz’s will left all his property to his wife, who predeceased him, and the will did not name an alternate beneficiary. See § 732.603(2)....

...After a hearing, the trial court denied the petition without explanation. This appeal followed. It is undisputed that the sole devisee, Mary Venture, was Ollie Scott’s sister. Since Venture predeceased the testator Scott, this case is controlled by Florida’s antilapse statute. Florida Statutes section 732.603 (1993) provides in pertinent part as follows: Unless a contrary intention appears in the will: (1) If a devisee who is a grandparent, or a lineal descendent of a grandparent, of the testator: (b) Fails to survive the testator, ......

...After a hearing, the trial court denied the petition without explanation. This appeal followed. It is undisputed that the sole devisee, Mary Venture, was Ollie Scott's sister. Since Venture predeceased the testator Scott, this case is controlled by Florida's antilapse statute. Florida Statutes section 732.603 (1993) provides in pertinent part as follows: Unless a contrary intention appears in the will: (1) If a devisee who is a grandparent, or a lineal descendent of a grandparent, of the testator: ......

interest identified in the probated will. See § 732.603(1), Fla. Stat. (the Florida Anti-Lapse statute)

could not have been incorporated by reference. Section 732.603(2) Florida Statutes (1981) provides: Antilapse;

...t to" only the limitations expressed in subsection (1), those being "the intention of the testator as expressed in the will," and the "rules of construction" contained in Part VI of chapter 732 (i.e., section 732.601 ("Simultaneous *691 Death Law"), section 732.603 ("Antilapse"), section 732.604 ("Failure of testamentary provision"), section 732.605 ("Change in securities"), section 732.606 ("Nonademption of specific devises"), section 732.607 ("Exercise of power of appointment"), section 732.60...

...1) may obtain an order of court directing the payment of the funds to him. All funds deposited with the State Treasurer and not claimed within 10 years from the date of deposit shall escheat to the state for the benefit of the State School Fund. [2] § 732.603, Fla....