Final Summary Judgment in an Estate Planning Case in Hillsborough County, FL

Tampa Managing Partner Aram Megerian and Partner Mark Tinker obtained a Final Summary Judgment for an Estate Planning Firm that negligently drafted a Will which did not dispose of the testator’s property as intended. 

The testator attempted to leave two lucrative rental properties that she believed she owned in equal shares to her dependents, however, the two rental properties were owned by her late husband’s revocable trust and therefore was not entitled to bequest those properties. When CSK received the file, the Estate Planning Firm had already admitted fault and requested to settle.  

Mr. Megerian was able to craft the arguments for this motion based upon his vast understanding of Estate Planning, while Mr. Tinker skillfully argued the motion.

 Under Florida law, a beneficiary is not able to present extrinsic evidence to establish the testator’s intent other than the words in the Will. (Lorraine v. Grover, Ciment, Weinstein & Stauber, P.A., 467 So. 2d 315, 317 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1985).(1))

After we admitted that the firm negligently created the Will against the true testator’s intent (for purposes of Motion for Summary Judgement), further argued that based upon well-established Florida law, the court must rely on the four corners of the operative Will to establish the testator’s intent. 

• In Lorraine v. Grover, the testator executed a will to leave his mother a life estate for the residence he shared with his mother and son. Id. During the probate proceedings it was determined that the property was the testator’s homestead, therefore the property passed directly to his son. Id. The testator’s mother brought suit alleging that Defendants were negligent in not advising against the homestead property and possible alternatives. Id. The court determined the testamentary intent that has allegedly been frustrated must be expressed in the will and the beneficiary’s loss must be a direct result of, or proximately caused by, the attorney’s alleged negligence. Id. Testators were negligent regarding the homestead and possible alternatives.  Ultimately, the court found there was no indication that the testator wished or intended any alternative property interest to pass to his mother under the will if the devise of the life estate in the residence failed. Id.  The court reasoned a beneficiary may not prove by extrinsic evidence a testator’s testamentary intent was contrary to the expressed language of the will. Id.