Opinion
No. 3D19-1905
10-14-2020
Robert TITTLE, Appellant, v. Montgomery DAHM, Appellee.
James J. Dorl, P.A., and James J. Dorl, for appellant. Law Offices of David W. Evoy, P.L., and David W. Evoy (Coconut Creek), for appellee.
James J. Dorl, P.A., and James J. Dorl, for appellant.
Law Offices of David W. Evoy, P.L., and David W. Evoy (Coconut Creek), for appellee.
Before SCALES, HENDON, and MILLER, JJ.
MILLER, J.
Appellant, Robert Tittle, seeks review of a lower court order denying his petition for the administration of a will, grounded upon a finding of undue influence. We conclude the factors delineated in In re Carpenter's Estate, 253 So. 2d 697, 702 (Fla. 1971), are not exhaustive, but merely illustrative, designed to "aid trial judges in looking for those warning signals pointing to active procurement of a will by beneficiary." See Blinn v. Carlman, 159 So. 3d 390, 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015) ; Pate v. Mellen, 275 So. 2d 562, 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). Accordingly, and honoring the "trial court's superior vantage point in assessing the credibility of witnesses" and resolving factual disputes, we decline to disturb the judicious and measured conclusion rendered below. Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917, 923 (Fla. 2001) ; see In re Krieger's Estate, 88 So. 2d 497, 498 (Fla. 1956) ; Coppock v. Carlson, 547 So. 2d 946, 946-47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989) ; In re Lamberson's Estate, 407 So. 2d 358, 362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981) ; see also Peacock v. Du Bois, 90 Fla. 162, 166, 105 So. 321, 322 (Fla. 1925).
Affirmed.