Florida law requires that the specific content of a lost will be established by two disinterested witnesses or, if a “correct copy is provided, it shall be proved by one disinterested witness.” In Smith v. DeParry, 86 So. 3d 1228 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012), a Florida intermediate appellate court upheld the trial court order denying probate to a lost codicil, holding that although a computer generated copy of the document could be a “correct copy,” in this case, the co-personal representatives were not disinterested because one was the nominated trustee of a pet trust created by the lost codicil and the other was the lawyer who had the codicil for safekeeping so that the loss could be the basis of an action by the nominated trustee.
Special thanks to William LaPiana (Rita and Joseph Solomon Professor of Wills, Trusts, and Estates, New York Law School) for bringing this case to my attention.
