The Case of the Not-So-Simple Will

By Gary Blankenship, Senior Editor

A Florida woman’s attempt to save money by using a commercial will form instead of hiring an attorney ultimately led to litigation that cost significantly more than she initially saved—and resulted in her estate being distributed in a way that likely contradicted her intent.

In a recent decision by the Florida Supreme Court, Justice Barbara Pariente, writing a concurring opinion, underscored the risks of using generic wills without legal guidance. The case involved Ann Aldrich, who completed her will in 2004 using an “E-Z Legal Form.” The will was properly witnessed and executed, and it left all of her listed property to her sister. It also specified that, if her sister predeceased her, the property should go to her brother.

After her sister passed away, Aldrich inherited additional property and funds. However, her will did not include a residuary clause or any general bequests to account for assets acquired after the will was executed. At some point, Aldrich attached a handwritten addendum stating her wish for her brother to receive the newly inherited property, with certain funds going to a niece as personal representative.

This document, however, lacked the required signatures to be considered legally valid under the Florida Probate Code.

Justice Peggy Quince, writing for the majority, explained that Aldrich’s will, as written, did not contain any provisions directing how to distribute the after-acquired property. As a result, that portion of the estate must be distributed according to Florida’s intestacy laws. Aldrich’s brother, named as personal representative, had claimed the entire estate—including the inheritance from her sister—should go to him. But two nieces challenged that, arguing the will did not legally dispose of the inherited property.

Supporting the nieces’ position, an amicus brief filed by the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section of The Florida Bar confirmed the absence of any general bequest that would apply to the additional assets. The court agreed with the First District Court of Appeal, holding that state law would govern the distribution of property not addressed in the will. Therefore, under Florida law, the nieces were entitled to the inherited assets.

Justice Quince wrote, “The testator’s intention as expressed in the will controls, not that which she may have had in her mind… The will did not have a residuary clause or any general devises which could be interpreted as disposing of any of the inherited property. This court cannot infer from the four corners of the will, without adding words to the document, that in making provision for the property that she stood to gain in the future.”

Justice Pariente, joined by Justices Charles Canady, Jorge Labarga, and James Perry, issued a concurring opinion highlighting the broader implications of the case. She noted that Aldrich likely used the pre-printed form to save money, but that decision ultimately led to prolonged litigation and attorney’s fees—outcomes she had tried to avoid.

“This form, which is in the record, did not have space to include a residuary clause or pre-printed language that would allow a testator to elect to use such a clause,” Pariente wrote. “This case illustrates the potential dangers of relying on commercial legal forms and drafting a will without legal assistance. That decision can ultimately result in the frustration of the testator’s intent, in addition to the payment of extensive attorney’s fees.”

She concluded that the unfortunate outcome was not caused by the court’s interpretation of probate law, but rather by Aldrich’s use of a commercially available will that failed to address her unique legal needs and was apparently drafted without any legal counsel.

The court’s decision was issued on March 27 in James Michael Aldrich v. Laurie Basile, et al., Case No. SC11-2147. Chief Justice Ricky Polston and Justice Fred Lewis concurred in the result only.