Juan C. Antunez has recently published an article entitled “Fla.S.Ct: DIY estate planning + technical execution defects = partial intestacy contrary to grantor’s “true” intent. Should we adopt the Uniform Probate Code’s “harmless error” rule for technical execution defects?” (April 14, 2014) on the Florida Probate & Trust Litigation Blog (www.flprobatelitigation.com).
Provided below is a portion of the article from flprobatelitigation.com:
Fla.S.Ct: DIY estate planning + technical execution defects = partial intestacy contrary to grantor’s “true” intent. Should we adopt the Uniform Probate Code’s “harmless error” rule for technical execution defects?
“If you make your living drafting wills or enforcing them in court, here’s what this case should NOT be about for you: inflicting post-mortem punishment on a woman for engaging in DIY estate planning (which was the slant reflected in this short ABA piece reporting on the case). Instead, what this case is really about is how strict compliance with Florida’s execution formalities for wills and codicils, which are meant to be intent-serving devices, ironically produced intent-defeating results.”
For more information on this topic, continue reading the article "Fla.S.Ct: DIY estate planning + technical execution defects = partial intestacy contrary to grantor’s “true” intent. Should we adopt the Uniform Probate Code’s “harmless error” rule for technical execution defects? " By Juan C. Antunez (FLProbateLitigation.com).