732.603
Antilapse; deceased devisee; class gifts.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
732.603 Antilapse; deceased devisee; class gifts.—
(1) Unless a contrary intent appears in the will, if a devisee who is a grandparent, or a descendant of a grandparent, of the testator:
(a) Is dead at the time of the execution of the will;
(b) Fails to survive the testator; or
(c) Is required by the will or by operation of law to be treated as having predeceased the testator,
a substitute gift is created in the devisee’s surviving descendants who take per stirpes the property to which the devisee would have been entitled had the devisee survived the testator.
(2) When a power of appointment is exercised by will, unless a contrary intent appears in the document creating the power of appointment or in the testator’s will, if an appointee who is a grandparent, or a descendant of a grandparent, of the donor of the power:
(a) Is dead at the time of the execution of the will or the creation of the power;
(b) Fails to survive the testator; or
(c) Is required by the will, the document creating the power, or by operation of law to be treated as having predeceased the testator,
a substitute gift is created in the appointee’s surviving descendants who take per stirpes the property to which the appointee would have been entitled had the appointee survived the testator. Unless the language creating a power of appointment expressly excludes the substitution of the descendants of an object of a power for the object, a surviving descendant of a deceased object of a power of appointment may be substituted for the object whether or not the descendant is an object of the power.
(3) In the application of this section:
(a) Words of survivorship in a devise or appointment to an individual, such as “if he survives me,” “if she survives me,” or to “my surviving children,” are a sufficient indication of an intent contrary to the application of subsections (1) and (2). Words of survivorship used by the donor of the power in a power to appoint to an individual, such as the term “if he survives the donee” or “if she survives the donee,” or in a power to appoint to the donee’s “then surviving children,” are a sufficient indication of an intent contrary to the application of subsection (2).
(b) The term:
1. “Appointment” includes an alternative appointment and an appointment in the form of a class gift.
2. “Appointee” includes:
a. A class member if the appointment is in the form of a class gift.
b. An individual or class member who was deceased at the time the testator executed his or her will as well as an individual or class member who was then living but who failed to survive the testator.
3. “Devise” also includes an alternative devise and a devise in the form of a class gift.
4. “Devisee” also includes:
a. A class member if the devise is in the form of a class gift.
b. An individual or class member who was deceased at the time the testator executed his or her will as well as an individual or class member who was then living but who failed to survive the testator.
(4) This section applies only to outright devises and appointments. Devises and appointments in trust, including to a testamentary trust, are subject to s. 736.1106.
History.—s. 1, ch. 74-106; s. 36, ch. 75-220; s. 967, ch. 97-102; s. 51, ch. 2001-226; s. 6, ch. 2003-154; s. 33, ch. 2006-217; s. 159, ch. 2020-2.
Note.—Created from former s. 731.20.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1976–2024 · leading case: In Re Estate of Benson
In Re Estate of Benson (1989)
“Judge Hayes determined that Florida's Slayer Statute did not prevent the minor children of Steven Benson from inheriting their father's share under the will of Margaret Benson under section 732.603, Florida Statutes (1985), nor from inheriting their father's share of Scott…”
Hulsh v. Hulsh (1983)
“Had we been unable to reach this conclusion, then the bequest to Marcella would lapse, since she is not a blood relative of the testator, and her descendant would not be protected by the antilapse provision of Section 732.603(1), Florida Statutes (1979).”
Tubbs v. Teeple (1980)
“We consider here whether the Florida Anti-Lapse Statute (§ 732.603, Fla.Stat.) applies to a testamentary gift to a stepdaughter.”
In Re Estate of Wagner (1982)
“Section 732.603, Florida Statutes (1979), the antilapse statute, reads in pertinent part: 732.”
Basile v. Aldrich (2011)
“601 ("Simultaneous *691 Death Law"), section 732.603 ("Antilapse"), section 732.”
Ruotolo v. Tietjen (2006)
“12, § 2313 (b) (2001) (section shall not apply in case of wills wherein provisions have been made for distribution of property different from this section); Fla. Stat. Ann. § 732.603 (West 2005) (“[ujnless a contrary intention appears in the will”); 755 Ill.”
In Re Estate of Skinner (1981)
“611, Florida Statutes (1979), supersede Section 732.603, the anti-lapse statute; b) the finding is contrary to the intent of the testator; c) the rule concerning an incompleted adoption set out in Sheffield v.”
In Re Estate of Scott (1995)
“Florida Statutes section 732.603 (1993) provides in pertinent part as follows: Unless a contrary intention appears in the will: (1) If a devisee who is a grandparent, or a lineal descendent of a grandparent, of the testator: .”
STEVEN CHAUNCY vs DENNIS LEE GORDEN AND THE ESTATE OF ADDISON WOOLLEN MCNAIRY (2023)
“603 in effect when McNairy executed his 1998 Will—or, for that matter, the current version of the statute—a gift would not lapse if the predeceased devisee was either the grandparent or the descendant of a grandparent of the testator.”
Lorenzo v. Medina (2010)
“When the predeceased devisee is a descendant of the testator’s grandparents, section 732.603 will “save” the lapsed gift by creating a substitute gift in the devisee’s descendants.”
In Re Estate of Russell (1980)
“…within 10 years from the date of deposit shall escheat to the state for the benefit of the State School Fund. [2] § 732.603, Fla. Stat. (1977).”
Swan v. Florida National Bank of Miami (1984)
“Section 732.603(2) Florida Statutes (1981) provides: Antilapse; deceased devisee; class gifts Unless a contrary intention appears in the will: (2) If a devisee who is not a grandparent, or a descendant of a grandparent, of the testator: (a) Is dead at the time of the execution…”
— 732.603(1) — 6 cases
In Re Estate of Benson (1989)
“Judge Hayes determined that Florida's Slayer Statute did not prevent the minor children of Steven Benson from inheriting their father's share under the will of Margaret Benson under section 732.603, Florida Statutes (1985), nor from inheriting their father's share of Scott…”
Hulsh v. Hulsh (1983)
“Had we been unable to reach this conclusion, then the bequest to Marcella would lapse, since she is not a blood relative of the testator, and her descendant would not be protected by the antilapse provision of Section 732.603(1), Florida Statutes (1979).”
Lorenzo v. Medina (2010)
“When the predeceased devisee is a descendant of the testator’s grandparents, section 732.603 will “save” the lapsed gift by creating a substitute gift in the devisee’s descendants.”
STEVEN CHAUNCY vs DENNIS LEE GORDEN AND THE ESTATE OF ADDISON WOOLLEN MCNAIRY (2023)
“603 in effect when McNairy executed his 1998 Will—or, for that matter, the current version of the statute—a gift would not lapse if the predeceased devisee was either the grandparent or the descendant of a grandparent of the testator.”
— 732.603(2) — 4 cases
Hulsh v. Hulsh (1983)
“Had we been unable to reach this conclusion, then the bequest to Marcella would lapse, since she is not a blood relative of the testator, and her descendant would not be protected by the antilapse provision of Section 732.603(1), Florida Statutes (1979).”
Swan v. Florida National Bank of Miami (1984)
“Section 732.603(2) Florida Statutes (1981) provides: Antilapse; deceased devisee; class gifts Unless a contrary intention appears in the will: (2) If a devisee who is not a grandparent, or a descendant of a grandparent, of the testator: (a) Is dead at the time of the execution…”
In re Cole's Estate (1976)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.