Upson v. Estate of Carville
Florida District Court of Appeal
369 So. 2d 113 (1979)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In 1965, Helen Carville executed a will leaving her estate in trust to her two grandchildren. Carville meticulously maintained all her important papers, including the executed copy of her will, in a metal box in her office. Carville’s attorney retained an unexecuted carbon copy of the will. Carville’s metal box was observed one or two weeks before her death. Before she died, Carville had talked with friends about making a new will, such as including a provision for a great grandchild, but none of Carville’s friends had heard of her actually doing it, nor had they seen her execute a new will. Carville had never expressed any intent to leave her estate to her daughter Dianna Upson (defendant). After Carville died, the metal box could not be found. Upson lived in the same vicinity as Carville, and if the will was found, Upson would receive no part of Carville’s estate. Because the will could not be found, Carville’s attorney petitioned to probate the copy he had maintained on behalf of Carville’s estate (plaintiff). Upson filed her own petition, claiming there was a presumption that Carville had destroyed her will. The court considered the evidence, probated the lost will, and denied Upson’s petition. Upson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 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.
