From our private database of 30,900+ case briefs...
Pangborn v. Union Trust National Bank (In re Estate of Burkhart)
Florida District Court of Appeal
204 So. 2d 737 (1967)
John Burkhart executed his current will in October 1959. Burkhart’s will disinherited his relatives and included bequests to several charitable organizations in Morrow County, Ohio. Burkhart had long-standing interests in, and contacts with, Morrow County. Burkhart’s will was drafted by an Ohio lawyer who testified that Burkhart met with him three times, including the execution meeting, and at all times was completely lucid, conversant in the terms of his current and prior wills, and able to explain his property-disposition choices. Burkhart also expressed to the Ohio lawyer that he had problems with his relatives. Acquaintances of Burkhart who interacted with him around the time of the execution of his current will testified he was lucid, neat, and conversationally normal. In February 1960, Burkhart was declared incompetent by reason of cerebral arteriosclerosis with senility. In 1964, Burkhart died, his will was admitted to probate, and letters of administration were issued to Union Trust Company (defendant). A group of Burkhart’s relatives (the relatives) (plaintiffs), who were his closest natural heirs, filed a petition to revoke probate of the current will, arguing Burkhart lacked testamentary capacity when he executed it. At trial, the relatives testified Burkhart showed signs of senility as early as 1956 and provided expert testimony from Dr. Holtzman, who was unacquainted with Burkhart and formed his opinion based on a hypothetical, that Burkhart suffered from senility and lacked testamentary capacity to execute his October 1959 will. However, Holtzman’s testimony did not account for the fact that Burkhart conducted his own affairs, traveled alone, and lived alone up through at least February 1960. Union Trust’s expert similarly issued an opinion off a hypothetical but opined that a person in Burkhart’s condition would likely have lucid moments. The county court denied the relatives’ petition to revoke the probate of the current will, and the relatives appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 551,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 551,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 30,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.