Tartaglia v. Hatten (In re Estate of Hatten)
Florida District Court of Appeal
880 So. 2d 1271 (2004)
- Written by Liz Nakamura, JD
Facts
Louise Hatten, decedent, had seven siblings and an approximately $700,000 estate. Louise’s will left her estate to only four of her siblings, Antoinette Tartaglia, Jeanette Kidd, Anthony Hatten (the beneficiary siblings) (plaintiffs), and Helen Parker. Louise allowed Antoinette to read her executed will. Shortly before her death, Louise told Anthony and Jeanette about the will’s contents and reaffirmed that she intentionally disinherited the other three siblings. After Louise’s death, Antoinette, along with one of Louise’s disinherited siblings, Louis Hatten (defendant), went to Louise’s home. While at Louise’s home, Louis gathered and took all of Louise’s personal papers. Louis did not tell anyone whether the papers he took included Louise’s will. After Louis’s visit, Louise’s will could not be found. Antoinette testified that she believed Louis had found Louise’s will, discovered it disinherited him, and then destroyed it. Louis then petitioned to have Louise’s estate administered as an intestate estate. The beneficiary siblings filed a claim for tortious interference with testamentary expectancy, alleging that Louis maliciously destroyed Louise’s will and that, as a result, each beneficiary sibling would only receive their intestate share, $100,000, rather than the $175,000 share each would have received under the will. Louis moved for summary judgment, and the trial court granted it. The beneficiary siblings appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cope, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 824,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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.