Opinion
October 5, 1951. Rehearing Denied December 13, 1951.
Appeal from the Circuit Court, Dade County, Marshall C. Wiseheart, J.
Scruggs Carmichael, Gainesville, for appellant.
Anderson Nadeau, Miami, for appellees.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court in and for Dade County, Florida, affirming an order of the County Judge of said county holding that a will, purporting to be the last will and testament of Julia C. Kearney, was a forgery.
The facts and circumstances leading up to the offer for probate by the appellant of the will here involved are, briefly, as follows: Julia C. Kearney died in Miami, Florida, in July of 1948. She had lived as a recluse for many years and under circumstances indicating extreme poverty. However, securities in the amount of $120,000.00 were found on the premises after her death. There were no known heirs at that time, and the story was widely carried in the newspapers. As a result, some eighty persons from all over the world filed claims as heirs of Mrs. Kearney, but only three sets of claimants actually appeared in the Probate Court to attempt to establish their claims. These were (1) the brothers and sisters of Mrs. Kearney, who are the appellees here; (2) Mary Moxley Calton, who claimed to be the illegitimate daughter of Mrs. Kearney; and (3) Bernice B. Mauldin, the appellant here, who claimed to be a niece of Mrs. Kearney.
Voluminous testimony was taken before the County Judge to determine who were the true heirs of Mrs. Kearney, and it was determined by him that Mary Moxley Calton was not the illegitimate daughter, and that Bernice Mauldin, the appellant, was not a niece, of Mrs. Kearney. Mrs. Mauldin did not appeal from this order of the County Judge. It was, however, affirmed by the Circuit Court on the appeal of Mary Moxley Calton, and the appeal to this court from the order of affirmance was dismissed.
Two months after the County Judge had entered his order determining that Mrs. Mauldin was not the niece of Mrs. Kearney, Mrs. Mauldin appeared with a will which purported to be the last will and testament of Mrs. Kearney, and which she claimed to have found by accident behind a picture. This will named Mary Moxley Calton, "the blood daughter" of testatrix, as sole beneficiary, and Mrs. Mauldin as executrix, and it was offered for probate by Mrs. Mauldin. The County Judge was confronted at the same time with the question of the authenticity of another will which had also been offered for probate subsequent to his order above referred to. After taking considerable testimony, the County Judge found that both wills were forgeries. Mrs. Mauldin appealed to the Circuit Court from such order, insofar as the Mauldin-Calton will was concerned, which court, after a consideration of the entire record in the case, affirmed the order of the County Judge holding the will to be a forgery. Mrs. Mauldin has appealed to this court from such order of affirmance.
The principal contention here made by appellant is that, since the will's authenticity is sworn to by alleged eyewitnesses to its execution, and since its falsity is established only by the testimony of handwriting experts, it was error to hold the will a forgery. While undoubtedly in a proper case the testimony of expert witnesses ought not to prevail in the face of direct and credible evidence to the contrary, there is no such situation here.
Without detailing the inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimony of the proponents of the will, we will say only that they were sufficient to deprive such testimony of its credibility; and, indeed, the situation itself, as recounted above, carries with it its own ring of implausibility. The handwriting experts were of the highest order of integrity, and we have heretofore held that such testimony alone is sufficient to establish a forgery. See Boyd v. Gosser, 78 Fla. 64, 82 So. 758. The County Judge, who heard and observed the witnesses, and the Circuit Judge, who reviewed the entire record in the proceedings relating to the administration of Mrs. Kearney's estate, gave no credence to the testimony of the proponents of the will and agreed with the handwriting experts that the will was a forgery. From our examination of the record, we think there can be no question that this was the correct decision.
Accordingly, the order appealed from should be and it is hereby
Affirmed.
SEBRING, C.J., and CHAPMAN and ADAMS, JJ., concur.