drafting error in Florida

2019See Martyak, 873 So. 2d at 407 .

2015See Popp v. Rex, 916 So.2d 954, 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (affirming an order that reformed a trust to clarify the settlor’s intent that if one of the settlor’s two sons died without issue before distribution of the trust assets was complete, the trust assets were to be distributed to the surviving son); Schroeder v. Gebhart, 825 So.2d 442, 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (affirming a trial court order that reformed a trust in order to include as beneficiaries of the trust two of the set-tlor’s grandchildren who had been excluded as the result of a drafting error).

2015See Popp v. Rex, 916 So.2d 954, 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (affirming an order that reformed a trust to clarify the settlor’s intent that if one of the settlor’s two sons died without issue before distribution of the trust assets was complete, the trust assets were to be distributed to the surviving son); Schroeder v. Gebhart, 825 So.2d 442, 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (affirming a trial court order that reformed a trust in order to include as beneficiaries of the trust two of the set-tlor’s grandchildren who had been excluded as the result of a drafting error).

2015See Popp v. Rex, 916 So.2d 954, 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (affirming an order that reformed a trust to clarify the settlor’s intent that if one of the settlor’s two sons died without issue before distribution of the trust assets was complete, the trust assets were to be distributed to the surviving son); Schroeder v. Gebhart, 825 So.2d 442, 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (affirming a trial court order that reformed a trust in order to include as beneficiaries of the trust two of the set-tlor’s grandchildren who had been excluded as the result of a drafting error).

2015See Popp v. Rex, 916 So.2d 954, 958 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005) (affirming an order that reformed a trust to clarify the settlor’s intent that if one of the settlor’s two sons died without issue before distribution of the trust assets was complete, the trust assets were to be distributed to the surviving son); Schroeder v. Gebhart, 825 So.2d 442, 446 (Fla. 5th DCA 2002) (affirming a trial court order that reformed a trust in order to include as beneficiaries of the trust two of the set-tlor’s grandchildren who had been excluded as the result of a drafting error).

2011See Brannen v. State, 94 Fla. 656 , 114 So. 429, 430-31 (1927) (“Uncontroverted and undiscredited evidence is not necessarily always binding upon a court or jury, as, for instance, when it is essentially illegal, contrary to natural!] laws, inherently improbable or unreasonable, opposed to common knowledge, inconsistent with other circumstances established in evidence, or contradictory within itself.

2011See Brannen v. State, 94 Fla. 656 , 114 So. 429, 430-31 (1927) (“Uncontroverted and undiscredited evidence is not necessarily always binding upon a court or jury, as, for instance, when it is essentially illegal, contrary to natural!] laws, inherently improbable or unreasonable, opposed to common knowledge, inconsistent with other circumstances established in evidence, or contradictory within itself.

2011Co. v. Abe’s Wrecker Serv., Inc., 564 F.Supp.2d 1350, 1356-1357 (M.D.Fla.2008). 1 In this case, the unrefuted testimony of the drafting lawyer was that by virtue of a drafting error, the settlor’s intention of giving his long-time nurse, Cecilia Reid, the apartment in which the settlor lived (a non-monetary gift) was thwarted by the trust instrument which combined both monetary and non-monetary gifts to Reid and made both gifts inferior in priority to a number of other monetary gifts. 2 As the drafting attorney’s signed affidavit, Exhibit C to the Amended Petition to Reform Trust, attests, the

1982See Wingert v. State, 353 So.2d 643 (Fla. 3d DCA 1977); Rule 3.190(h)(4), Fla.R.Crim.P., cf. McDonnell v. State, 336 So.2d 553 (Fla.1976); Land v. State, 293 So.2d 704 (Fla.1974).