When someone wrongfully prevents you from receiving an inheritance you reasonably expected, Florida law may allow you to pursue damages through a claim for tortious interference with an expectancy. This cause of action permits heirs and beneficiaries to recover losses caused by third-party misconduct that occurs outside the probate proceeding itself—whether through fraud, undue influence, forgery, or other intentional acts that destroy a testamentary gift or expected bequest.
What Tortious Interference with an Expectancy Is and When It Arises
Tortious interference with an expectancy is a civil tort claim, distinct from will contests or trust disputes litigated in probate court. It addresses situations in which a third party—often a caregiver, family member, or advisor—engages in wrongful conduct that causes the decedent to change or revoke estate-planning documents, thereby disinheriting the plaintiff or reducing the plaintiff’s expected inheritance.
Florida courts have recognized this tort for decades. In DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So. 2d 216, 218 (Fla. 1981), the Florida Supreme Court acknowledged that “a cause of action for wrongful interference with a testamentary expectancy has been recognized in this state,” though it cautioned that such claims may be barred when they constitute a collateral attack on a probate decree that has become final. The DeWitt court emphasized the tension between protecting the finality of probate judgments and providing a remedy for intentional tortious conduct that falls outside the scope of probate proceedings.
The tort typically arises in one of three contexts. First, the wrongdoer may exert undue influence over the decedent, causing execution of a new will or trust that benefits the influencer and disinherits the plaintiff. Second, the wrongdoer may commit fraud or forgery—fabricating documents, concealing amendments, or misrepresenting facts to the decedent. Third, the wrongdoer may engage in intentional interference by physically isolating the decedent from family members or advisors who would have reminded the decedent of prior estate plans. In Kelly v. Kelly, 901 F. Supp. 1567, 1573 (M.D. Fla. 1995), the court cited the Florida case Watts v. Haun, 393 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981), in which the defendant travelled to Florida and acted to keep the decedent from living with the plaintiff, thereby interfering with the plaintiff’s expected gift. These factual scenarios all share a common thread: intentional, wrongful conduct by a third party that destroys or diminishes the plaintiff’s expectancy.
It is important to understand that this claim is not available simply because a decedent chose to change estate plans. Florida law permits testators and settlors to revoke or amend wills and trusts at any time, for any reason, so long as they possess testamentary capacity and act free from undue influence. A tortious interference claim requires proof of wrongful conduct—mere disappointment at being disinherited is not enough.
The Legal Elements a Plaintiff Must Prove in a Tortious Interference with an Expectancy Florida Claim
To prevail on a claim for tortious interference with an expectancy in Florida, the plaintiff must establish each of the following elements by a preponderance of the evidence:
- Existence of a reasonable expectancy of inheritance or gift.
- Intentional interference with that expectancy by the defendant.
- Conduct that is independently tortious or otherwise wrongful.
- Reasonable certainty that the plaintiff would have received the inheritance but for the defendant’s interference.
- Damages proximately caused by the defendant’s conduct.
Element One: Reasonable Expectancy of Inheritance or Gift
The plaintiff must prove that he or she had a reasonable expectancy—not merely a hope or wish—of receiving an inheritance or gift. This typically requires evidence of the decedent’s intent, such as prior estate-planning documents naming the plaintiff as a beneficiary, oral statements by the decedent expressing intent to leave property to the plaintiff, a pattern of financial support, or family circumstances that made the expectancy objectively reasonable. Florida courts look to the totality of the circumstances. A named beneficiary in a prior will has a strong expectancy; an estranged relative who has not spoken to the decedent in years likely does not.
Documentary evidence is crucial. Prior wills, trusts, beneficiary designations, deeds with retained life estates, and correspondence between the decedent and the plaintiff or the decedent and estate-planning attorneys all tend to prove a reasonable expectancy. Courts are skeptical of purely speculative claims based on vague family understandings or wishful thinking.
Element Two: Intentional Interference by the Defendant
The plaintiff must show that the defendant engaged in intentional conduct directed at destroying or diminishing the plaintiff’s expectancy. Intentional means the defendant acted with the purpose of influencing the decedent’s estate plan or knew with substantial certainty that the conduct would have that effect. Negligent interference is not enough. If a caregiver innocently provides information to the decedent, and the decedent independently decides to change beneficiaries, there is no intentional interference.
Proving intent often requires circumstantial evidence: the defendant’s actions in isolating the decedent from family, sudden changes to estate documents shortly after the defendant’s involvement began, the defendant’s financial motive, and statements or conduct by the defendant showing awareness of the prior estate plan and desire to supplant it. Email, text messages, and witness testimony from family members, neighbors, or professionals who observed the defendant’s conduct are all relevant.
Element Three: Independently Tortious or Wrongful Conduct
Florida courts require that the defendant’s interference be accomplished through conduct that is itself a tort or otherwise wrongful under Florida law. This element distinguishes lawful persuasion—which testators are free to hear—from unlawful coercion, fraud, forgery, or undue influence. Common forms of independently tortious conduct include:
- Undue influence: Domination and control over the decedent, exploitation of a confidential relationship, and procurement of a benefit to the detriment of the plaintiff.
- Fraud or misrepresentation: False statements to the decedent about the plaintiff’s conduct, financial need, or character, made with intent to induce the decedent to disinherit the plaintiff.
- Forgery or alteration of documents: Fabricating a will, codicil, or trust amendment, or destroying estate-planning documents.
- Duress or coercion: Threats, physical restraint, or abuse that force the decedent to change beneficiaries.
- Tortious interference with a business relationship: In some contexts, interference with expected gifts can overlap with interference claims recognized in commercial settings. See Oscar Ins. Co. of Florida v. Blue Cross, 360 F. Supp. 3d 1278, 1284 (M.D. Fla. 2018) (recognizing tortious interference with a business relationship as a separate count).
The plaintiff must identify the specific tort or wrongful act. General allegations that the defendant “interfered” are insufficient. Detailed factual pleading is required under Florida’s notice-pleading standards, and discovery must uncover concrete evidence of the wrongful conduct.
Element Four: Reasonable Certainty the Plaintiff Would Have Inherited
The plaintiff must prove with reasonable certainty that, but for the defendant’s interference, the decedent would have executed (or not revoked) estate-planning documents that benefited the plaintiff. This element requires proof of the decedent’s likely intent in the absence of wrongful interference. Courts assess this by examining prior wills and trusts, the decedent’s statements of intent, the decedent’s relationship with the plaintiff, and expert testimony (often from estate-planning attorneys or medical professionals) regarding the decedent’s capacity and susceptibility to influence.
Reasonable certainty does not mean absolute certainty, but the plaintiff must prove more than a mere possibility. If the decedent had a history of frequently changing beneficiaries or had expressed ambivalence about the plaintiff, causation becomes harder to prove. Conversely, if the decedent consistently named the plaintiff as primary beneficiary over many years and changed course only after the defendant’s involvement, causation is stronger.
Element Five: Damages Proximately Caused by the Interference
Finally, the plaintiff must prove actual damages—the monetary value of the lost inheritance or gift. Damages are typically measured by the difference between what the plaintiff would have received under the prior estate plan and what the plaintiff actually received (if anything) under the plan executed as a result of the defendant’s interference. If the prior will left the plaintiff the family home valued at $500,000 and the interfered-with will left the plaintiff nothing, damages are $500,000 (subject to any defenses or offsets).
Plaintiffs may also seek punitive damages if the defendant’s conduct was willful, wanton, or malicious. Florida law permits punitive damages in tort cases where clear and convincing evidence shows the defendant acted with gross negligence or intentional wrongdoing. Attorney’s fees and costs are generally not recoverable in tort claims unless a contractual or statutory basis exists, but some courts have awarded fees under equitable theories when the defendant’s conduct was particularly egregious.
Who Has Standing to Bring a Tortious Interference with an Expectancy Claim in Florida
Standing is a threshold issue. Only persons who had a reasonable expectancy of inheritance may sue. This typically includes:
- Beneficiaries named in prior wills or trusts who were removed or whose shares were reduced by the interfered-with documents.
- Heirs at law who would have inherited under Florida’s intestacy statute, Fla. Stat. § 732.101 et seq., if the decedent had not executed a will as a result of the defendant’s interference.
- Lifetime gift recipients who expected additional gifts or bequests based on the decedent’s representations or course of conduct.
Standing does not extend to remote or speculative claimants. A friend or distant relative who merely hoped to be remembered in the will but had no objective basis for that hope lacks standing. Similarly, creditors of the estate do not have standing to assert interference claims on behalf of beneficiaries, though they may have separate claims under Florida’s fraudulent transfer statutes if estate assets were dissipated.
Personal representatives of the estate generally do not bring interference claims, because the tort belongs to the individual beneficiary, not the estate. However, if the personal representative is also a beneficiary who was disinherited, that individual may sue in his or her personal capacity.
Burden of Proof and the Evidence Typically Required in Florida Tortious Interference Cases
The plaintiff bears the burden of proof on every element of the claim, and the standard is preponderance of the evidence—more likely than not. Because these cases often turn on the decedent’s intent and the defendant’s state of mind, both of which are difficult to prove directly, plaintiffs rely heavily on circumstantial evidence, expert testimony, and documentary trails.
Medical Records and Capacity Evidence
Medical records are critical in proving undue influence or lack of capacity. Records showing diagnoses of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, or psychiatric conditions help establish the decedent’s vulnerability. Expert testimony from geriatric psychiatrists, neurologists, or psychologists can explain how the decedent’s cognitive impairments made him or her susceptible to influence. Conversely, defendants often produce medical evidence showing the decedent was lucid and capable at the time of executing the challenged documents.
Witness Testimony from Family, Friends, and Professionals
Lay witnesses who observed the decedent’s relationship with both the plaintiff and the defendant are invaluable. Neighbors, caregivers, other family members, clergy, and physicians can testify about the decedent’s statements of intent, the defendant’s control over the decedent’s daily life, and any sudden changes in the decedent’s behavior or estate planning. Attorneys who prepared prior wills or trusts can testify about the decedent’s instructions and the circumstances under which later documents were executed.
Financial Records and Asset Transfers
Bank statements, checks, wire transfers, deeds, and beneficiary-designation changes provide a timeline of the defendant’s involvement and financial benefit. Sudden large gifts to the defendant, joint accounts opened shortly before death, and transfers of real property are all red flags. In co-owner disputes involving rental income, similar financial forensics are used to trace funds and establish misconduct.
Electronic Communications and Digital Evidence
Emails, text messages, voicemails, and social media posts can reveal the defendant’s motives, statements to the decedent, and coordination with others. Metadata from electronic documents may show when estate-planning documents were created or altered. Digital forensics experts can recover deleted files or demonstrate forgery.
Discovery in these cases is extensive. Plaintiffs routinely issue subpoenas to banks, brokerage firms, attorneys, accountants, and medical providers. Depositions of all parties and key witnesses are essential. The defendant’s refusal to produce documents or provide testimony can result in adverse inferences or sanctions under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380.
Procedure, Deadlines, and the Statute of Limitations for Florida Tortious Interference Claims
Timing is critical. Florida does not have a specific statute of limitations for tortious interference with an expectancy. Courts typically apply the four-year statute of limitations for general tort claims under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(o), which governs causes of action founded on statutory liability not specifically provided for elsewhere. Some courts have applied the two-year statute for fraud under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(j) when the interference involved fraudulent misrepresentation. Plaintiffs should file within the shorter period to avoid risk.
The limitations period generally begins to run when the plaintiff discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, the interference and resulting injury. In most cases, this is the date of the decedent’s death or shortly thereafter, when the challenged will or trust is admitted to probate and the plaintiff learns of the disinheritance. If the defendant concealed the wrongful conduct, Florida’s fraudulent concealment doctrine may toll the statute, but the plaintiff must prove active concealment—mere ignorance is not enough.
Venue is proper in the county where the decedent was domiciled at death, where the defendant resides, or where the wrongful acts occurred. In Kelly v. Kelly, 901 F. Supp. at 1573, the court addressed personal jurisdiction where the defendant “traveled to Florida” to interfere, underscoring that Florida courts may exercise jurisdiction over non-residents who commit torts in Florida or whose tortious conduct causes injury in Florida.
Plaintiffs typically file these claims in Florida circuit court as separate civil actions, not as probate proceedings. However, if a will contest or trust dispute is already pending in probate court, the tortious interference claim may be consolidated or stayed pending resolution of the probate matter. The DeWitt court warned that tortious interference claims can become improper collateral attacks on final probate decrees. If the probate court has already adjudicated the validity of the will after a full evidentiary hearing, and the plaintiff had notice and opportunity to contest, res judicata may bar a later tort claim based on the same facts. Strategic timing and coordination between probate and civil counsel are essential.
Common Defenses Raised by Defendants and How They Are Met
Defendants in tortious interference cases assert a range of affirmative defenses and factual rebuttals. Understanding these defenses allows plaintiffs to anticipate and counter them effectively.
Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel
As noted in DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So. 2d at 218, defendants often argue that the plaintiff is collaterally attacking a final probate decree. If the probate court admitted the will to probate, found the decedent had capacity, and rejected challenges to validity, the defendant will claim the plaintiff cannot relitigate those issues in a tort action. Plaintiffs respond by showing that the probate proceeding did not address the specific tortious conduct alleged (for example, fraud on the court or conduct that occurred outside the probate process), or that the plaintiff lacked notice or a full opportunity to litigate in probate. When probate proceedings conclude without contest or by default, res judicata is less likely to apply because the court did not actually adjudicate the merits.
Lack of Independently Wrongful Conduct
Defendants argue that their conduct was lawful—merely offering advice, providing care, or discussing estate planning with the decedent. They may produce evidence that the decedent had independent legal counsel, was of sound mind, and made voluntary decisions. Plaintiffs counter by showing the defendant’s dominant influence, isolation of the decedent from other advisors, and the defendant’s financial benefit. Evidence of a confidential or fiduciary relationship (such as agent under a power of attorney) shifts the burden to the defendant to prove fairness and lack of undue influence.
No Reasonable Expectancy
Defendants contend the plaintiff never had a reasonable expectancy—that the decedent was free to change beneficiaries and that the plaintiff’s expectation was speculative. They point to evidence of strained relationships, the decedent’s expressions of dissatisfaction with the plaintiff, or prior instances of the decedent revising estate plans. Plaintiffs rebut this by presenting prior wills naming them as beneficiaries, testimony of the decedent’s longstanding intent, and evidence that any estrangement was caused or exploited by the defendant’s interference.
Statute of Limitations
Defendants assert the claim is time-barred. Plaintiffs must prove when the cause of action accrued and whether any tolling applies. If the plaintiff participated in probate proceedings years earlier and learned of the disinheritance then, the defendant will argue the clock started at that time. Plaintiffs may invoke fraudulent concealment or argue that full knowledge of the tortious conduct (as opposed to mere knowledge of the disinheritance) did not occur until later discovery.
Independent Intervening Cause
Defendants claim the decedent’s decision to change beneficiaries was based on independent reasons unrelated to any alleged interference—personal grievances, tax planning, changed financial circumstances, or advice from independent counsel. Plaintiffs must trace the chain of causation and exclude other plausible explanations through timeline evidence, witness testimony, and expert analysis.
Lack of Damages or Mitigation
Defendants may argue the plaintiff suffered no damages because the estate was insolvent, the plaintiff received equivalent value through other means, or the challenged document was never actually probated. They may also assert the plaintiff failed to mitigate damages by not timely objecting in probate court. Plaintiffs must quantify losses with appraisals, financial statements, and expert testimony, and demonstrate they pursued all available remedies.
Remedies and Outcomes Available in Tortious Interference with an Expectancy Florida Cases
If the plaintiff prevails, Florida courts may award several forms of relief:
- Compensatory Damages: The primary remedy is a money judgment equal to the value of the lost inheritance. This is typically the fair market value of the property or bequest the plaintiff would have received, as of the date of the decedent’s death, adjusted for any subsequent appreciation or depreciation if the defendant has retained the property.
- Punitive Damages: If the defendant’s conduct was willful, malicious, or grossly negligent, the court may award punitive damages to punish the wrongdoer and deter similar conduct. Florida law caps punitive damages at three times compensatory damages or $500,000, whichever is greater, absent extraordinary circumstances. Fla. Stat. § 768.73.
- Constructive Trust or Equitable Restitution: In some cases, courts impose a constructive trust on assets wrongfully obtained by the defendant, requiring the defendant to hold the property for the benefit of the plaintiff. This remedy is especially appropriate when the defendant received specific property (such as real estate or a family business) as a result of the interference.
- Pre-Judgment and Post-Judgment Interest: Plaintiffs are entitled to statutory interest on damages from the date of injury (typically the decedent’s death) through judgment and thereafter.
- Costs and Attorney’s Fees: Generally not recoverable in tort actions, but may be available if the defendant’s conduct violated a statute providing for fee-shifting (such as Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq., if applicable), or under an independent contract or trust provision.
It is important to note that a judgment in tort does not automatically invalidate the probated will or trust. The probate decree remains in effect unless separately set aside through a will contest or other probate proceeding. The tort judgment simply provides a monetary remedy against the wrongdoer. In practice, defendants may be personally liable even if they have already distributed estate assets, and plaintiffs may seek to recover from the defendant’s own assets or insurance.
The Relationship Between Tortious Interference Claims and Probate Administration
Tortious interference claims often arise in parallel with probate administration and contested wills in Florida. When a will is admitted to probate, interested parties have a limited window—typically 90 days under Fla. Stat. § 733.212—to file objections or caveats. If that deadline passes without contest, the will is deemed valid, and probate proceeds. A plaintiff who missed the probate deadline or who lacked standing to object in probate court may still pursue a tort claim for interference, provided the claim does not collaterally attack the decree and is filed within the applicable statute of limitations.
Strategic plaintiffs often pursue both avenues simultaneously: objecting to the will in probate court and filing a separate tort action for damages. This dual-track approach preserves all remedies. If the will is set aside in probate, the prior will (or intestacy) governs distribution, and the tort claim may become moot or serve to recover additional damages for delay and emotional distress. If the will is upheld in probate, the tort claim remains viable to recover monetary damages from the wrongdoer personally.
Coordination with probate counsel is essential, as is careful attention to the doctrines of claim preclusion and issue preclusion. Courts are vigilant against duplicative litigation and will dismiss tort claims that merely repackage unsuccessful probate challenges.
Why Experienced Litigation Counsel Is Decisive in Florida Tortious Interference Cases
Tortious interference with an expectancy claims are among the most complex and hard-fought disputes in Florida probate litigation. They require mastery of tort law, probate procedure, evidence rules, and trial advocacy. The plaintiff’s attorney must conduct exhaustive discovery, retain credible experts, develop compelling witness testimony, and navigate procedural landmines such as res judicata and statutes of limitations. The defendant’s attorney will deploy every available defense, challenge every element, and attempt to wear down the plaintiff through motion practice and delay.
Success in these cases depends on early case assessment, strategic planning, and relentless factual development. An experienced litigator will identify the specific tortious conduct, gather documentary and testimonial proof, anticipate defenses, and craft a trial narrative that persuades judges and juries. Retaining counsel with a track record in Florida inheritance disputes and tortious interference claims significantly increases the likelihood of a favorable outcome.
Moreover, these cases often involve substantial sums and emotionally charged family dynamics. An attorney who understands the nuances of elder law, capacity issues, and fiduciary duties can effectively cross-examine adverse witnesses, counter expert testimony, and present the plaintiff’s case with both legal precision and empathetic storytelling. Clients benefit from counsel who can explain complex legal concepts clearly, manage expectations realistically, and pursue resolution efficiently—whether through settlement, mediation, or trial.
Common Questions About Tortious Interference with an Expectancy in Florida
What is the difference between a will contest and a tortious interference claim?
A will contest is filed in probate court and challenges the validity of the will itself, typically on grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, fraud, or improper execution. The remedy is setting aside the will and either admitting a prior will or distributing the estate under intestacy. A tortious interference claim is a separate civil tort action for money damages, filed against the individual who wrongfully caused the decedent to change estate plans. The probate decree is not directly challenged; instead, the plaintiff seeks compensation from the wrongdoer for the lost inheritance. Both remedies may be pursued simultaneously.
Can I sue the attorney who drafted the new will or trust?
Possibly, if the attorney participated in or knowingly facilitated the tortious conduct. Florida law imposes ethical duties on attorneys to ensure clients act freely and with capacity. If the attorney ignored red flags of undue influence, failed to interview the client privately, or colluded with the wrongdoer, the attorney may be liable for malpractice or conspiracy to commit tortious interference. However, attorneys generally owe no duty to non-clients (such as disinherited beneficiaries), so proving liability is difficult. Expert testimony regarding the attorney’s breach of professional standards is typically required.
Can I bring a claim against a family member?
Yes. Tortious interference claims frequently involve family members—siblings, adult children, stepparents, or other relatives—who exert undue influence or commit fraud to secure a larger share of the estate. Family relationships do not immunize wrongdoers from liability. In fact, family members often have greater opportunity and access to commit interference, making them common defendants. These cases are emotionally difficult, but the law provides a remedy when one family member wrongfully deprives another of an inheritance.
What if the will has already been probated and the estate closed?
You may still pursue a tort claim for damages, provided you file within the statute of limitations and the claim does not constitute an improper collateral attack on the probate decree. As the Florida Supreme Court noted in DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So. 2d at 218, the issue is whether the tort claim merely relitigates matters that were (or should have been) raised in probate. If the probate proceeding was uncontested or if you lacked notice or standing to participate, the tort claim is more likely to survive. Even if the estate is closed and assets distributed, the defendant remains personally liable, and you can seek to recover from the defendant’s personal assets or pursue other collection remedies.
How long do I have to file a tortious interference claim?
Generally, four years from the date you discovered (or should have discovered) the interference and injury, under Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(o). In some cases, courts apply the two-year fraud statute, Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(j). The clock typically starts when the decedent dies and you learn of the disinheritance. If the defendant concealed the tortious conduct, the statute may be tolled, but you must prove active concealment. Do not delay—consult an attorney as soon as you suspect wrongful interference, because evidence deteriorates, witnesses’ memories fade, and procedural defenses strengthen over time.
Can I recover my attorney’s fees if I win?
Generally no, unless a statute or contract provides for fee-shifting. Florida follows the “American Rule,” under which each party bears its own fees. However, if the defendant’s conduct also violated Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (if the defendant was engaged in trade or commerce), or if the challenged trust or will contains a fee-shifting provision that applies to related litigation, fees may be recoverable. Some courts have awarded fees under equitable theories or as part of punitive damages when the defendant’s conduct was exceptionally egregious. Discuss fee issues with your attorney during case planning.
Bottom Line: Protecting Your Inheritance Rights in Florida
When a third party wrongfully destroys your expectancy of inheritance through fraud, undue influence, or other tortious conduct, Florida law provides a remedy. Tortious interference with an expectancy claims allow you to recover monetary damages for the lost bequest, hold wrongdoers accountable, and vindicate the decedent’s true intent. These cases are fact-intensive, legally intricate, and demand skilled litigation counsel who can marshal evidence, navigate procedural hurdles, and present a compelling case at trial.
If you believe you have been wrongfully disinherited or that someone interfered with your inheritance, time is critical. Evidence must be preserved, statutes of limitations observed, and strategic decisions made early. The attorneys at Zoecklein Law, P.A. have extensive experience litigating complex probate and inheritance disputes throughout Florida. We understand the legal elements, the evidentiary demands, and the courtroom strategies required to prevail in tortious interference cases.
Call us today at (877) 206-0022 or visit our contact page for a confidential consultation. We will review your situation, explain your legal options, and fight to protect your inheritance rights.
Authorities Cited
- DeWitt v. Duce, 408 So. 2d 216 (Fla. 1981)
- Kelly v. Kelly, 901 F. Supp. 1567 (M.D. Fla. 1995)
- Oscar Ins. Co. of Florida v. Blue Cross, 360 F. Supp. 3d 1278 (M.D. Fla. 2018)
- Watts v. Haun, 393 So. 2d 54 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981) (cited in Kelly)
- Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(j) (two-year statute of limitations for fraud)
- Fla. Stat. § 95.11(3)(o) (four-year statute of limitations for general statutory torts)
- Fla. Stat. § 501.201 et seq. (Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act)
- Fla. Stat. § 732.101 et seq. (intestate succession)
- Fla. Stat. § 733.212 (time for objecting to probate of will)
- Fla. Stat. § 768.73 (punitive damages caps)
- Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.380 (sanctions for failure to comply with discovery)