In Florida, the concept of a “pretermitted heir” is addressed by Florida Statutes Section 732.302. A pretermitted heir is a child born or adopted after the execution of a will who is neither provided for nor mentioned in the will. If a testator fails to provide for a child born or adopted after the execution of their will, that child is entitled to a share of the testator’s estate. This share is equivalent to what the child would have received if the testator had died intestate, meaning without a will, and the estate was distributed according to Florida’s intestacy laws. However, this protection does not extend to a child if it appears from the will that the omission was intentional, or if the testator had other children and devised substantially all of their estate to the other parent of the pretermitted child. The question describes a scenario where a will predates the birth of a child, and that child is not mentioned or provided for. The testator’s sole beneficiary is their spouse, who is also the other parent of the after-born child. This specific situation falls under the exception outlined in Florida Statutes Section 732.302(2)(b), which states that a child born after the execution of a will is not entitled to a share of the estate if the testator had other children and devised substantially all of the estate to the other parent of the pretermitted child. Since the surviving spouse is the other parent of the after-born child and is the sole beneficiary of the entire estate, the pretermitted child will not inherit.

In Florida, a will must be in writing, signed by the testator (or by another person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction), and attested to by at least two subscribing witnesses. These witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator. The concept of “presence” is crucial. For a witness to sign in the testator’s presence, the testator must be able to see the witness sign, or at least be aware of the signing and have the ability to have seen it had they chosen to look. This is often referred to as the “conscious presence” test, which focuses on the testator’s awareness and ability to perceive the act of signing. Florida Statute § 732.502 outlines these requirements. If a will is not executed in accordance with these formalities, it may be deemed invalid, leading to intestacy or the application of a prior valid will. The fact that the testator was in a coma and could not physically see the witnesses sign, even if they were in the same room, would likely fail the conscious presence test, as the testator lacked the capacity to perceive the act of signing. Therefore, the will would be invalid.

Florida Statute 732.502 governs the execution of wills. For a will to be validly executed in Florida, it must be in writing, signed by the testator, or by another individual in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction. Furthermore, the will must be attested to by at least two witnesses. These witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator. The statute does not require the witnesses to sign in each other’s presence, nor does it mandate that the testator sign in the witnesses’ presence, although signing in the testator’s presence is a critical requirement for the person signing on behalf of the testator. The core of the attestation requirement is that the witnesses observe the testator’s act of signing or the testator’s acknowledgment of the signature or the will. The scenario describes a will signed by the testator, and then by two witnesses, one of whom signed in the testator’s presence, and the other signed later in the testator’s absence. Since the second witness did not sign in the testator’s presence, nor did the testator acknowledge the signature to the second witness, the will’s execution fails the statutory requirements for proper attestation under Florida law. Therefore, the will is invalid.

In Florida, a trust is generally considered irrevocable unless the terms of the trust expressly state that it is revocable. Upon the death of the settlor, a revocable trust becomes irrevocable. The settlor, Ms. Eleanor Vance, created a trust in 2010, and the trust instrument did not contain any provisions reserving the right to amend or revoke it. Therefore, the trust is considered irrevocable from its inception under Florida law, specifically Florida Statutes § 736.0601. An irrevocable trust cannot be amended or revoked by the settlor after its creation, absent a specific power of revocation reserved in the trust document or by court order under specific circumstances not present here. The trustee’s duty is to administer the trust according to its terms. Since the trust is irrevocable, Ms. Vance cannot unilaterally alter its provisions or terminate it. The trustee’s actions are governed by the terms of the irrevocable trust instrument and Florida trust law. The question asks about Ms. Vance’s ability to modify the trust. Because the trust document does not grant her the power to amend or revoke, and it was not created with such a reservation, it is irrevocable. Thus, she cannot modify it.

In Florida, the revocation of a will can occur in several ways. One method is by subsequent instrument, which requires a writing executed with the same formalities as a will. This can be a new will that expressly revokes prior wills, or a codicil that revokes specific provisions or the entire will. Another method is by physical act, which involves the testator intentionally destroying the will with the intent to revoke it. This destruction must be complete, such as burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying by a physical act. The intent to revoke is crucial for a physical act to be effective. For instance, merely writing “canceled” on the will without a physical act of destruction is generally insufficient. Similarly, if the testator intends to destroy the will but fails to do so completely, revocation by physical act will not be effective. The Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) as adopted in Florida (Florida Statutes Chapter 668, Part II) does not directly apply to the revocation of wills, as wills are specifically governed by Florida Statutes Chapter 732. Therefore, an electronic deletion or modification of a digital will file, without the proper testamentary formalities for a written will, would not constitute a valid revocation. The law requires a tangible act or a subsequent testamentary instrument.

The scenario describes a situation where a testator, Elara Vance, created a will in Florida. She later moved to Georgia and executed a codicil to that will while residing there. A codicil is an amendment or addition to an existing will. For a codicil to be valid in Florida, it must be executed with the same formalities as a will. Florida Statutes Section 732.502 outlines the requirements for the execution of wills and codicils, which include that the will must be signed by the testator or on the testator’s behalf by some other person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction, and it must be attested by at least two witnesses. These witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator. The critical point here is that even though the codicil was executed in Georgia, Florida law will govern its validity if the testator was domiciled in Florida at the time of her death and the codicil was executed in accordance with the laws of the state where it was executed (Georgia) or in accordance with Florida law. Georgia law generally requires a will or codicil to be signed by the testator and attested by at least two witnesses who sign in the presence of the testator. Assuming the codicil was properly executed in Georgia according to Georgia’s testamentary formalities, it would be considered valid in Florida. Therefore, the codicil effectively amends Elara’s Florida will.

The scenario involves a testator, Elara Vance, who created a will in Florida. She later executed a codicil that specifically revoked a prior devise of real property located in Georgia to her nephew, Finn. The codicil, however, did not address the disposition of her residuary estate, which included personal property and other real estate not specifically devised. Florida law, specifically Florida Statutes Section 732.507, governs the effect of a codicil on a will. A codicil is an amendment to a will and, while it can modify specific provisions, it generally republishes the will as amended. Crucially, a codicil revokes prior inconsistent provisions. In this case, the codicil’s specific revocation of the Georgia property devise to Finn means that devise is no longer effective. The residuary clause, not being mentioned or contradicted by the codicil, remains in full force and effect, controlling the disposition of all property not otherwise specifically devised or revoked. Therefore, the residuary estate, including the personal property and other real estate, will pass according to the terms of the residuary clause in Elara’s original will. The revocation of the specific devise of the Georgia property does not impact the validity or operation of the residuary clause.

The scenario describes a testamentary trust created by a will. Florida law, specifically Florida Statutes Chapter 736, governs trusts. When a trust is created by a will, it is known as a testamentary trust. The trustee’s duties commence upon the testator’s death and the admission of the will to probate. The trust assets are those specifically devised or bequeathed to the trust. In this case, the specific bequest of the beachfront property in Sarasota, Florida, along with the associated rental income, forms the corpus of the testamentary trust. The trust instrument itself, which is part of the will, dictates how these assets are to be managed and distributed. The trustee’s fiduciary duties, such as loyalty, prudence, and impartiality, apply from the moment they accept the trusteeship, which is typically after the will is probated and the assets are transferred to the trust. Therefore, the trust’s existence and the trustee’s responsibilities begin with the testator’s death and the probate process, not at some future date or upon a specific event unrelated to the testator’s passing. The trustee’s ability to manage and distribute assets is contingent upon the proper establishment and funding of the trust, which is initiated by the will’s provisions upon death.

In Florida, the Uniform Trust Code, as adopted and modified by Florida Statutes Chapter 736, governs the administration of trusts. A trustee has a duty to administer a trust solely in the interest of the beneficiaries and in accordance with its terms. When a trustee distributes income or principal to a beneficiary, they must ensure the distribution is authorized by the trust instrument and that it does not violate any fiduciary duties. If a trustee makes an improper distribution, they may be held personally liable for the loss to the trust. Florida law presumes that a trustee acted in good faith and in accordance with their fiduciary duties. However, this presumption can be rebutted by evidence to the contrary. The trustee’s duty of loyalty is paramount, meaning they cannot engage in self-dealing or benefit from the trust at the expense of the beneficiaries. The scenario describes a trustee distributing principal to a beneficiary for a purpose not explicitly permitted by the trust document, and doing so without the consent of all qualified beneficiaries or a court order. This action could be construed as a breach of the trustee’s duty to administer the trust according to its terms and potentially a breach of the duty of loyalty if the trustee’s personal interests were involved or if the distribution was not truly for the beneficiary’s benefit as contemplated by the trust. The question tests the understanding of a trustee’s powers and limitations, particularly concerning discretionary distributions of principal and the requirement for beneficiary consent or court approval for deviations from the trust’s express terms.

In Florida, the revocation of a will can occur through a subsequent will, a written instrument executed with the same formalities as a will, or by physical act. The physical act of revocation requires intent to revoke and a direct physical alteration of the will, such as burning, tearing, canceling, or obliterating the document. Florida Statute 732.507 outlines these methods. Specifically, for cancellation, the act must be upon the body of the will itself, not merely on an attached paper or envelope, unless the attached paper is considered part of the will. Obliteration means destroying or effacing the words of the will. If a testator intends to revoke a will by physical act, and the act is incomplete or ambiguous, the revocation may be deemed ineffective. For instance, partially burning a will without completely destroying it, or drawing a line through some provisions but not all, might not constitute a complete revocation if the intent to revoke the entire will is not clear or if portions remain legible and could potentially be construed as still valid. The key is the testator’s intent and the effectiveness of the physical act in manifesting that intent. If the physical act is insufficient to revoke the entire will, or if it affects only a portion, the remainder of the will may still be valid, depending on the specific circumstances and the testator’s intent as demonstrated by the act. The revocation must be complete and unequivocal.

The scenario describes a situation where a testator, Ms. Anya Sharma, executes a will in Florida. The will is witnessed by two individuals, Mr. David Chen and Ms. Emily Rodriguez. Mr. Chen is also named as a beneficiary in Ms. Sharma’s will. Florida law, specifically Florida Statutes Section 732.305, addresses the competency of witnesses to a will. A key provision is that a witness is generally competent if they are of sound mind and of the age of majority. However, the statute also addresses the issue of interested witnesses, meaning those who stand to gain a benefit from the will. While a will is not automatically invalidated if an interested person signs as a witness, Florida law presumes undue influence or fraud if such a witness is involved, and the interested witness must then overcome this presumption. If they cannot, their gift under the will may be voided to the extent that it exceeds the share they would have received had the testator died intestate. In this case, Mr. Chen is both a witness and a beneficiary. Therefore, while his witnessing does not automatically invalidate the entire will, his status as an interested witness creates a presumption of undue influence or fraud under Florida law. The will itself is not voided solely because of his dual role, but his beneficial interest may be subject to challenge or limitation if the presumption is not rebutted. The validity of the will hinges on whether the testator’s intent was properly expressed and not procured by undue influence or fraud, which is where the interested witness status becomes critical. The core legal principle is that the will remains valid, but the beneficiary-witness’s inheritance might be affected.

In Florida, the doctrine of “after-acquired title” allows a grantor who conveys property they do not own at the time of the conveyance, but subsequently acquire title to, to be deemed to hold that acquired title for the benefit of the grantee. This principle is rooted in the idea of preventing unjust enrichment and ensuring that a grantor cannot profit from conveying property they did not possess. Florida Statute 689.01, concerning the execution of deeds, does not explicitly codify after-acquired title but is generally interpreted to permit its operation. The core of this doctrine is that the grantor’s subsequent acquisition of title automatically vests that title in the grantee, often without the need for a new conveyance, provided the original deed was valid in its execution and intent. This doctrine is particularly relevant in situations where a grantor mistakenly conveys property they believed they owned or where title defects are later cured. The grantee’s rights are secured by the grantor’s later acquisition, effectively fulfilling the original promise of the deed.

The scenario involves the concept of a testamentary trust created within a will. In Florida, a will can establish a trust that takes effect upon the testator’s death. The distribution of assets to such a trust is governed by the terms of the will. Specifically, if a will names a trust as a beneficiary, the assets designated for that trust are transferred to the trustee named in the will, who then manages and distributes them according to the trust’s provisions. This is distinct from an inter vivos trust, which is created and operates during the grantor’s lifetime. The question tests the understanding of how assets flow to a testamentary trust and the role of the executor in facilitating this transfer. The executor’s primary duty is to administer the estate, which includes marshalling assets, paying debts and taxes, and distributing the remaining property according to the will, which would include transferring assets to the testamentary trust. The trust’s existence is contingent on the will’s validity and the testator’s death.

The scenario describes a situation involving a testamentary trust established under a Florida will. Florida law, specifically Florida Statutes Chapter 736, governs trusts. When a trustee resigns, Florida Statutes Section 736.0701 outlines the process for appointment of a successor trustee. The statute provides that if a vacancy occurs in the office of a trustee, and there is no trustee to administer the trust, or if the trustee resigns, a successor trustee shall be appointed by the person holding the power to appoint, or if no such person exists, by the court. In this case, the will expressly designates a method for appointing a successor trustee: the remaining co-trustee, Ms. Eleanor Vance, has the power to nominate a successor. If Ms. Vance fails to exercise this power within a reasonable time, or if she is unable or unwilling to do so, then the beneficiaries of the trust, acting jointly, would have the next recourse to nominate a successor. If neither the designated nominator nor the beneficiaries can agree or act, then the court would step in to appoint a trustee. Since the will explicitly grants Ms. Vance the power to nominate, her action of nominating Mr. Sterling is the primary and correct method of filling the vacancy, assuming she acts within the scope of her authority as granted by the trust instrument. The question asks for the most appropriate action to fill the vacancy. The will’s provision for nomination by the co-trustee is the controlling directive.

The scenario presented involves a deceased individual, Mr. Alistair Finch, who executed a will in Florida. This will designated his sister, Beatrice, as the sole beneficiary. Crucially, Mr. Finch also held a joint tenancy with right of survivorship (JTWROS) with his nephew, Cedric, on a parcel of real estate located in Georgia. Upon Mr. Finch’s death, ownership of this Georgia property automatically passed to Cedric by operation of law due to the JTWROS designation, irrespective of the provisions in Mr. Finch’s Florida will. Florida law, while governing the distribution of Mr. Finch’s probate estate, does not supersede property law principles concerning survivorship rights established in other jurisdictions or through specific titling. Therefore, Beatrice, as the beneficiary under the will, would not inherit the Georgia property. The question tests the understanding of how non-probate assets, such as property held in JTWROS, are distributed outside of a will and how the situs of property can affect the application of different state laws, though in this case, the survivorship aspect is paramount and overrides the testamentary disposition. The key legal principle here is that survivorship rights in jointly held property are determined by the law of the jurisdiction where the property is located at the time of death and by the terms of the ownership agreement, not by the deceased’s will, unless the will explicitly addresses such property in a manner consistent with applicable law.

In Florida, a will is generally considered revoked if it is physically destroyed with the intent to revoke. This destruction can be accomplished by burning, tearing, canceling, obliterating, or destroying the will. The key elements are the physical act of destruction and the concurrent intent to revoke. For instance, if a testator intentionally burns their will, it is revoked. However, if the will is accidentally burned without the intent to revoke, the revocation is ineffective. The Florida Probate Code, specifically Florida Statute §732.506, addresses the revocation of wills by physical act. This statute requires that the testator must be of sound mind and acting freely and voluntarily when performing the act of destruction with the intent to revoke. If a portion of the will is torn, but the testator’s intent was to revoke the entire will, the entire will is considered revoked. Conversely, if the testator intended to revoke only a specific provision by tearing it, and the remainder of the will was intended to stand, the partial revocation might be effective depending on whether the testator’s intent can be ascertained and whether the remaining provisions are still intelligible and capable of standing alone. In this scenario, the testator’s deliberate act of tearing the will, coupled with their stated intention to revoke it entirely, satisfies the requirements for revocation by physical act under Florida law. The specific method of destruction, tearing, is a recognized means of revocation. The intent to revoke the entire document is crucial.

In Florida, a will must be in writing, signed by the testator, and attested to by two witnesses. The testator must have the testamentary capacity to understand the nature of the act of making a will, the nature and extent of their property, and the natural objects of their bounty. A holographic will, which is written entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed by the testator but not witnessed, is generally not valid in Florida. Florida Statute 732.502 outlines the requirements for a valid will. The scenario describes a will that was entirely in the testator’s handwriting and signed, but lacked the required two witnesses. Therefore, it fails to meet the statutory requirements for a valid will in Florida. The absence of witnesses is a fatal flaw for a will that is not executed with the proper formalities, even if it is entirely in the testator’s handwriting. Florida law does not recognize holographic wills as valid unless they are executed with the same formalities as any other will, meaning they must be witnessed.

The scenario involves the revocation of a will in Florida. Florida Statute §732.506 addresses the revocation of wills. A will can be revoked by a subsequent will, by a written will or codicil, or by an act of destruction. The act of destruction must be done with the intent to revoke. In this case, Ms. Gable’s initial will was properly executed. The subsequent attempt to revoke it by tearing it into pieces, while showing intent, must be done by the testator or by some other person in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction. If the tearing was done by her niece, Brenda, without Ms. Gable’s explicit direction or presence, it would not be a valid revocation by an act of destruction under Florida law. The subsequent will executed by Ms. Gable, which was properly witnessed, explicitly states that it revokes all prior wills and codicils. This is a valid method of revocation by a subsequent instrument. Therefore, the second will, being properly executed and containing a revocation clause, effectively revokes the first will, regardless of the niece’s actions. The question tests the understanding of the different methods of will revocation in Florida and the requirements for each. Specifically, it highlights the distinction between revocation by a subsequent instrument and revocation by an act of destruction, emphasizing the importance of intent and proper execution for both. The niece’s actions, even if intended to revoke, are insufficient if not performed in accordance with the statute, making the subsequent validly executed will the operative document.

The scenario involves a testamentary trust established by a Florida resident, Bartholomew, with his son, Cecil, as the trustee. The trust instrument grants Cecil the power to invade the trust corpus for Cecil’s “health, maintenance, and support.” This is a discretionary trust, but the standard for invasion is objective, often referred to as an “ascertainable standard.” Florida law, specifically Florida Statutes § 736.0103(1), defines an ascertainable standard as a standard relating to an individual’s needs for health, education, maintenance, or support. This standard limits the trustee’s discretion, requiring that any distributions be made only to the extent they are necessary to meet these specified needs. If a trustee acts outside of this standard, they may be held liable for breach of trust. The question asks about the nature of Cecil’s power. The power to invade for “health, maintenance, and support” is not a general power of appointment, which would allow Cecil to appoint the property to himself or his creditors without regard to any standard. Nor is it a limited power of appointment, which would allow him to appoint to a defined class of beneficiaries but not himself. It is also not a fiduciary power without limitation, as the “health, maintenance, and support” clause clearly imposes a limitation. Therefore, the most accurate description of Cecil’s power is that it is a fiduciary power subject to an ascertainable standard.

The scenario involves a potential conflict of interest and breach of fiduciary duty under Florida law. A trustee, in this case, Mr. Abernathy, has a legal obligation to act solely in the best interests of the trust beneficiaries, Ms. Chen and Mr. Davies. Florida Statutes Section 736.0802 outlines the trustee’s duty of loyalty, which prohibits self-dealing and requires the trustee to avoid conflicts of interest. By purchasing the distressed property from the trust at a price below its appraised value and then immediately reselling it for a substantial profit, Mr. Abernathy engaged in self-dealing. He prioritized his personal financial gain over the beneficiaries’ interests, which is a direct violation of his fiduciary responsibilities. The beneficiaries are entitled to recover any profits made by the trustee from the breach and potentially seek damages for any losses incurred due to his actions. The trustee’s argument that he was acting in the best interest of the trust by quickly liquidating a problematic asset does not negate the self-dealing aspect. The proper procedure would have been to seek court approval for the sale, disclose his potential interest, or resign from his position before engaging in such a transaction. Therefore, the beneficiaries have a strong claim for breach of fiduciary duty and can seek remedies for the profits Mr. Abernathy unjustly gained.

In Florida, a homestead property can be devised to beneficiaries, but there are specific protections for the surviving spouse and minor children that limit the testator’s absolute freedom of disposition. If a decedent is survived by a spouse or lineal descendants, Florida law provides certain homestead protections. Specifically, Article X, Section 4 of the Florida Constitution and Florida Statutes Section 732.401 govern the descent and devise of homestead property. If the homestead is occupied by the surviving spouse, it cannot be devised to anyone other than the spouse, unless the spouse waives their rights. If there are no surviving spouse, but there are lineal descendants, the homestead can be devised to the descendants, but a surviving spouse, if any, would still have rights to use the property for life. If there is a surviving spouse and lineal descendants, the surviving spouse receives a life estate in the homestead, and the lineal descendants receive the remainder interest per stirpes. Alternatively, the surviving spouse and descendants can agree to partition the homestead. The testator can devise the homestead to their spouse if they are the sole beneficiary. If the testator has lineal descendants but no spouse, they can devise the homestead to those descendants. However, if the testator has both a spouse and lineal descendants, the devise is restricted to protect the spouse’s interest. The testator cannot devise the homestead to a third party if a surviving spouse or minor children would be disinherited from their constitutional or statutory rights. In this scenario, the testator is survived by a spouse and two adult children. Florida law dictates that if a testator is survived by a spouse and lineal descendants, the surviving spouse receives a life estate in the homestead, and the lineal descendants receive the remainder interest. Therefore, the attempted devise of the homestead to a friend, bypassing the spouse and children, is invalid to the extent it infringes upon their homestead rights. The spouse would be entitled to a life estate, and the children would receive the remainder interest.

In Florida, the concept of a “residuary estate” is crucial for distributing assets not specifically bequeathed in a will. When a will fails to completely dispose of the testator’s property, the remaining assets fall into the residue. Florida Statute §732.502 governs the execution of wills, requiring them to be in writing, signed by the testator, and attested by two witnesses. If a will directs that specific items of personal property be distributed to named beneficiaries, but one of those beneficiaries predeceases the testator, and there is no residuary clause or alternative beneficiary named for that specific bequest, the gift lapses. A lapsed legacy typically passes as part of the residuary estate. If there is no residuary estate, or if the lapsed legacy is part of the residue itself, the property then passes according to Florida’s laws of intestacy. In this scenario, the antique pocket watch was specifically bequeathed to Mr. Abernathy, who predeceased the testator. The will contains no alternate beneficiary for the watch, nor does it contain a residuary clause that would capture this specific lapsed gift. Therefore, the pocket watch, as a lapsed specific devise of personal property, will pass as intestate property. Intestate succession in Florida, as outlined in Florida Statute §732.102, dictates distribution to the decedent’s heirs at law. Since the decedent is survived by a spouse and no children, the entire intestate estate passes to the surviving spouse.

In Florida, a will must be in writing, signed by the testator, and attested to by at least two subscribing witnesses. The witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator. A devise to a witness is generally void unless there are at least two other disinterested witnesses to the will. However, Florida Statutes Section 732.305 addresses the situation where a will is self-proved. A self-proved will is one where the testator and witnesses sign an affidavit before an officer authorized to administer oaths, attesting to the proper execution of the will. This affidavit creates a presumption of due execution and eliminates the need for witness testimony during probate, provided the affidavit is executed in compliance with the statute. The question describes a scenario where a will is signed by the testator and two witnesses, and then the testator and witnesses sign a separate affidavit before a notary public. This affidavit confirms that the testator declared the instrument to be their will, that they signed it voluntarily, and that the witnesses signed in the testator’s presence and in each other’s presence. This process effectively self-proves the will, making it admissible to probate without further witness testimony, assuming the affidavit meets all statutory requirements for a self-proving affidavit under Florida law. The key is the compliance with the self-proving affidavit procedures, which are distinct from the basic execution requirements of the will itself.

In Florida, the concept of an “interested witness” to a will is governed by Florida Statutes Section 732.302. This statute addresses the validity of a will when a beneficiary or an interested party also serves as a witness. Generally, a will is not invalidated solely because an interested witness signs it. However, the statute provides that the devise or legacy to the interested witness is void unless there are at least two other disinterested witnesses to the will. An interested witness is typically someone who stands to inherit under the will. If the interested witness would have inherited a portion of the testator’s estate had the will been invalid (e.g., through intestacy laws), their legacy under the will is presumed to be given by reason of their being a witness, and thus it is void. This presumption can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence that the testator intended to give the witness the legacy. In the scenario presented, Bartholomew is a beneficiary under the will of his aunt, Elara. He also acts as a witness. Since Bartholomew is a beneficiary and a witness, he is considered an interested witness. Florida law presumes that any gift to Bartholomew in Elara’s will is void because he is a beneficiary and a witness. This presumption is only overcome if there were at least two other witnesses who were not beneficiaries, or if clear and convincing evidence demonstrates Elara’s intent for Bartholomew to receive the bequest regardless of his witnessing the will. Without evidence to rebut the presumption, the bequest to Bartholomew would be void. Therefore, the devise to Bartholomew is void.

The scenario describes a testamentary trust established by a Florida resident, Ms. Anya Sharma, for the benefit of her nephew, Mr. Rohan Sharma. The trust corpus is a parcel of real property located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The trustee is Mr. David Chen. Florida law governs the creation and administration of trusts. Specifically, Florida Statutes Chapter 736, the Florida Trust Code, provides the framework for such matters. A key aspect of trust administration involves the trustee’s duties and powers, particularly concerning real property. The trustee has the power to manage, sell, lease, mortgage, or otherwise deal with trust property, including real estate, unless the trust instrument restricts these powers. In this case, the trust instrument grants the trustee broad discretion to manage the property. Therefore, Mr. Chen, as trustee, can legally sell the Miami-Dade County property to facilitate diversification or liquidity, as long as the sale is conducted prudently and in accordance with the trust’s terms and Florida law. The sale would not require court approval unless specifically mandated by the trust document or if there were a breach of trust alleged. The distribution of proceeds would follow the terms of the trust, which in this instance is to reinvest or distribute income to Rohan.

The scenario describes a situation where a testator, Elara Vance, executed a will in Florida. Subsequently, she moved to Georgia and executed a new will there. The core issue is the potential revocation of the Florida will by the execution of the Georgia will. Florida law, specifically Florida Statutes Section 732.507(2), addresses the revocation of prior wills. This statute states that if a testator executes a will that is valid in the state where it was executed or in the state where the testator was domiciled at the time of execution, and that will is later revoked by a subsequent will or codicil, the revocation is effective in Florida even if the subsequent will is not executed in accordance with Florida law, provided it is valid where executed. In this case, Elara executed a valid will in Florida. She then moved to Georgia and executed a new will there. Assuming the Georgia will is valid under Georgia law and contains a clear revocation clause of all prior wills, it would effectively revoke her Florida will. Therefore, the Florida will is revoked by the execution of the valid Georgia will. The subsequent domicile in Georgia is relevant as it establishes the testator’s intent and the validity of the subsequent testamentary instrument under the laws of her new domicile. The question hinges on the principle that a valid will executed in a foreign jurisdiction, which revokes prior wills, will be recognized in Florida if it meets the validity requirements of that foreign jurisdiction.

In Florida, a will is considered self-proving if it contains a proper attestation clause and the testator and witnesses sign an affidavit before an officer authorized to administer oaths. This affidavit, typically attached to the will, creates a presumption of due execution. The purpose of the self-proving affidavit is to eliminate the need for witness testimony in probate proceedings, thereby streamlining the process. Florida Statute \(732.502(1)(b)\) outlines the requirements for a self-proving will, which include the testator’s signature, the attestation by two witnesses, and an affidavit that the testator declared the instrument to be their will and that they signed it willingly, that each witness signed in the testator’s presence and in the presence of each other, and that the testator was of sound mind and not acting under duress or undue influence. The affidavit must be in substantially the form prescribed by statute. The absence of a self-proving affidavit does not invalidate the will itself, but it necessitates the production of witnesses or other evidence to prove due execution during probate. The question probes the understanding of the mechanism by which a will is rendered “self-proving” in Florida, focusing on the statutory requirements for the affidavit and its effect on the probate process. The core concept is that the affidavit serves as prima facie evidence of proper execution, simplifying the court’s task in validating the will.

Florida Statute 732.502 governs the execution of wills in Florida. It requires that a will be signed by the testator, or in the testator’s name by some other individual in the testator’s presence and by the testator’s direction. Furthermore, the will must be attested to by at least two witnesses. These witnesses must sign the will in the presence of the testator. The statute emphasizes that the testator’s signature must be made with the intent to give effect to the will. The presence of the witnesses is crucial for the proper attestation. The statute does not require the witnesses to sign in each other’s presence, but they must sign in the presence of the testator. This requirement ensures that the testator acknowledges the document as their will and that the witnesses can attest to this fact. The concept of “presence” in this context is generally interpreted as the testator being able to see or be aware of the act of signing. The purpose of these formalities is to prevent fraud and undue influence, ensuring that the document truly reflects the testator’s wishes.

In Florida, a trust may be created by a settlor who transfers property to a trustee for the benefit of a beneficiary. The trust instrument itself dictates the terms of the trust, including the powers and duties of the trustee and the rights of the beneficiaries. A crucial aspect of trust administration involves the trustee’s duty to account to the beneficiaries. Florida Statute § 736.0813 outlines the requirements for trustee accounting. Generally, a trustee must provide a report to the current beneficiaries at least once during every calendar year. This report should include a statement of receipts and disbursements during the period, a statement of all property held by the trust, and any compensation paid to the trustee and agents. However, the trust instrument can modify these requirements. If the trust instrument waives the duty to account, the trustee is relieved of this statutory obligation unless the beneficiaries unanimously agree otherwise or the trustee is removed. In the scenario presented, the trust instrument explicitly waives the annual accounting requirement. Therefore, unless the beneficiaries unanimously agree to receive annual accountings, the trustee is not obligated to provide them. The beneficiaries’ individual requests for accounting do not override the trust’s waiver provision without unanimous consent.

In Florida, a homestead property is protected from forced sale by creditors, subject to certain limitations. The Florida Constitution, Article X, Section 4, defines homestead property and its protections. For a property to qualify as a homestead, the decedent must have owned it and resided there with their family at the time of death. The protection extends to the surviving spouse and minor children. However, this protection is not absolute. Specifically, homestead property is subject to liens for taxes and assessments thereon, and for mortgages on the property executed by the owner or the owner’s spouse. It is also subject to claims for labor, services, or materials used to improve or repair the property. The question asks about the disposition of homestead property when the decedent is survived by a spouse but no lineal descendants. In such a scenario, Florida law dictates that the surviving spouse receives a life estate in the homestead property, with the fee simple title vesting in the decedent’s heirs. This means the spouse can live on the property for their lifetime, but upon their death, the property passes to the decedent’s heirs, who in this case, are not lineal descendants. This is a crucial distinction from situations where lineal descendants are present, which would alter the distribution. The underlying principle is to provide a home for the surviving spouse while ensuring the property eventually passes to the decedent’s chosen heirs, as determined by intestacy laws if no will directs otherwise, or as specified in a valid will.