Algar v. King (In re Estate of Algar)
Florida District Court of Appeal
383 So. 2d 676 (1980)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Marie Algar and George Algar, a married couple, executed separate wills in 1955, each containing a covenant that neither Marie nor George would change the provisions of their will without the written consent of the other. Marie and George had each been married previously and had children from their prior marriages. Marie and George’s 1955 wills provided that the surviving spouse would inherit the other’s estate and that George’s two children, William and Harold, would then inherit after the surviving spouse’s death. George died in 1966. In 1968, Marie executed a new will revoking the 1955 will and left her entire estate to her children (defendants). When Marie’s 1968 will was submitted to probate, William and Harold challenged, arguing that Marie’s 1955 will could not be revoked because of the mutual covenant with George and that the 1955 will therefore must be probated instead of the 1968 will. William and Harold could only produce carbon copies of Marie and George’s 1955 wills and did not provide evidence rebutting the presumption that the lost wills had been revoked. The trial court admitted Marie’s 1968 will to probate, denied to probate the 1955 will, and denied William and Harold damages for breach of contract. William and Harold appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Orfinger, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
