Frank v. Conlan
A decedent's son challenged a will executed two days before her death, alleging lack of testamentary capacity; the probate court granted summary judgment against him on the ground that he lacked standing because he would receive less under the prior will. The Fourth District reversed, holding that the son had constitutional standing (injury-in-fact from his materially different status as creditor versus legatee, with disparate tax consequences) and separately qualified as an "interested person" under section 731.201(23) because he would be "affected" by the outcome, regardless of whether he would ultimately be financially better off.
Key facts
- Decedent's son sought to challenge a will executed two days before the decedent's death, alleging the decedent lacked testamentary capacity at the time of execution.
- The probate court granted summary judgment against the son, finding he lacked standing because he would receive less under the challenged will than under a prior will.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
The opinion draws a clear analytical line between Article-style constitutional standing and the Probate Code's statutory "interested person" definition — a distinction Florida courts have routinely blurred — giving… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.