attestation clause in Florida

1991In In re Schiele’s Estate, 51 So.2d 287 (Fla.1951), the testator failed to sign his will on the line provided at end for his signature, but signed in an attestation clause.

1991In In re Schiele's Estate, 51 So.2d 287 (Fla. 1951), the testator failed to sign his will on the line provided at end for his signature, but signed in an attestation clause.

1940These circumstances, thought the circuit judge, justified the introduction of evidence to determine whether in fact the signature of Block was affixed “animus testandi, the presumption, though slight in force, being against the effectiveness of the paper as the last will and testament of the deceased.” The learned judge distinguished the case from the one decided by the court and emphasized by counsel for the respective parties, Brown v. Avery, 63 Fla. 355 , 376 South.

1940These circumstances, thought the circuit judge, justified the introduction of evidence to determine whether in fact the signature of Block was affixed " animus testandi, the presumption, though slight in force, being against the effectiveness of the paper as the last will and testament of the deceased." The learned judge distinguished the case from the one decided by the court and emphasized by counsel for the respective parties, Brown v. Avery, 63 Fla. 355 , 376 South.

1979At 44 A.L.R.3d 727 , the Gagen case is described as one in which the testator’s signature appeared “on the back” of the will. .The Pennsylvania Dietterich case, supra, is factually on point but is not persuasive in Florida because it relies on In re Churchill’s Estate, 260 Pa. 94 , 103 A. 533 (1918), which holds that a signature in the attestation clause is not at the “end” of the will, and is thus directly contrary to In re Schiele’s Estate, supra.

1979At 44 A.L.R.3d 727 , the Gagen case is described as one in which the testator’s signature appeared “on the back” of the will. .The Pennsylvania Dietterich case, supra, is factually on point but is not persuasive in Florida because it relies on In re Churchill’s Estate, 260 Pa. 94 , 103 A. 533 (1918), which holds that a signature in the attestation clause is not at the “end” of the will, and is thus directly contrary to In re Schiele’s Estate, supra.

1911McCoy v. Cassidy, 96 Mo., 429 , 9 S. W.

1907In Hogans v. Carruth, 19 Fla. 84 , text 90, this court said: “As to the matter of the attestation of.the deed, our statute does not require any particular form of words for the attestation clause of a deed, and the attestation clause of a deed in the words: ‘Bargained, sold, transferred and acknowledged iu presents (presence) of us,’ where the testificandum clause is: ‘In witneess whereof the said parties of the first part have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year' first above written,’ other facts showing delivery being established is sufficient.

1907In Hogans v. Carruth, 19 Fla. 84 , text 90, this court said: “As to the matter of the attestation of.the deed, our statute does not require any particular form of words for the attestation clause of a deed, and the attestation clause of a deed in the words: ‘Bargained, sold, transferred and acknowledged iu presents (presence) of us,’ where the testificandum clause is: ‘In witneess whereof the said parties of the first part have hereunto set their hands and seals the day and year' first above written,’ other facts showing delivery being established is sufficient.