CopyCited 13 times | Published | Florida 5th District Court of Appeal | 11 A.L.R. 4th 927
...603 (1932). [21] 26A C.J.S. Descent and Distribution § 61 (1956); 95 C.J.S. Wills § 678 (1957). [22] Reimer v. Smith,
105 Fla. 671,
142 So. 603 (1932); Storey v. First National Bank & Trust Co., in Orlando,
115 Fla. 436,
156 So. 185 (1934). [23] §
732.611, Fla....
CopyCited 5 times | Published | Florida 2nd District Court of Appeal | 1989 WL 100491
...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)....
...Margaret Benson's will devised her property to her children "per stirpes." Even though the drafter of the will testified in the murder trial that she intended a class gift to her children, since a class gift is not expressly provided by the terms of the will even if the term "per stirpes" had been omitted from the will, section 732.611, Florida Statutes (1985), would have applied to make the devises and bequests "per stirpes." Further, even if Margaret Benson's will had provided for a class gift to her three children, the Anti-Lapse Statute would have substituted St...
CopyCited 1 times | Published | Florida 4th District Court of Appeal | 1981 Fla. App. LEXIS 19703
...n's estate passes to John's nephews and nieces, children 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....
...The trial judge agreed with appellees and found the devise to Martin lapsed. We believe that decision to be correct. Appellants pose several points for our consideration, none of which indicates the trial judge misconstrued 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 gra...
...ill reflects an intention to substitute another in the place of the named devisee. Therefore, appellants contend, instead of the devise lapsing and the estate devolving upon John's nephews and nieces, the estate passes under the per stirpes statute (732.611) to Martin's children, Robert and Diane....
...ent 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. Section
732.611, first enacted in 1974 as Section 732.610, had the effect of codifying the law as it existed by legislatively recognizing the common law rule that the intention of the testator controls the manner of disposition to beneficiaries, per capita or per stirpes. However, if that intention cannot be gleaned from the instrument or surrounding circumstances, then a per stirpes distribution is favored. 18 Fla.Jur.2d, Decedent's Property § 409. Appellants contend that codifying Section
732.611 has some superseding effect upon the anti-lapse statute, but we disagree....
...ft living children. The estate would then pass per stirpes, one half of Martin's surviving child and one 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....
