Kendall v. Starnes (In re Estate of Benson)
Florida District Court of Appeal
548 So. 2d 775 (1989)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Steven Benson was convicted of killing his mother, Margaret Benson, and his brother, Scott Benson. Margaret died testate, and her will devised her property to her three children, Steven, Scott, and Carol Benson Kendall (plaintiff), in equal parts, per stirpes. Scott died intestate. Because Scott did not have a spouse, children, or living parents, his intestate heirs were his siblings. It was undisputed that Florida’s slayer statute prevented Steven from inheriting from either Margaret or Scott. Carol petitioned for a determination of beneficiaries for both estates, arguing that the slayer statute prevented Steven’s children from inheriting. Marjorie Starnes (defendant), as guardian for Steven’s minor children, challenged Carol’s petition. The trial court held that Steven’s children could inherit his share from both Margaret’s testate estate and Scott’s intestate estate. Based on extrinsic evidence of Margaret’s testamentary intent, the trial court further found that Margaret’s will was ambiguous because it was unclear whether the gift to the three children was intended to be a class gift but held that the antilapse statute saved the gifts to Steven’s children regardless. Carol appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Campbell, C.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.
