When a decedent’s signature on a will appears suspicious or family members observe irregularities in the execution ceremony, will forgery florida litigation may become necessary to protect the estate and the true intent of the testator. Forgery is one of the most serious grounds for revoking probate of a will in Florida, because it strikes at the foundational requirement that the document be signed by the testator or by someone acting at the testator’s direction.
What Will Forgery Is Under Florida Law
Will forgery in Florida arises when a party files a petition to revoke probate on the ground that the purported testator’s signature—or the signature of a witness or person signing on behalf of the testator—is not genuine. Florida Statutes section 732.502 prescribes strict formalities for will execution: the testator must sign the will at the end, or another person must sign the testator’s name in the testator’s presence and at the testator’s direction; the will must be signed in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses; and those witnesses must sign in the presence of the testator and each other. A forgery allegation asserts that one or more of those signatures is false, rendering the instrument invalid.
Forgery can take several forms. The most common is a fabricated testator signature—someone physically signs the decedent’s name without authority. Another is a forged witness signature, in which a person signs as an attesting witness but was never present at the execution. Still another is a situation in which the testator’s signature is genuine but was procured through fraud in the inducement or was affixed to a document the testator did not intend as a will. While the latter scenario may blend into fraud or undue influence claims, the core forgery claim focuses on the authenticity of the signature itself.
The Florida Supreme Court and District Courts of Appeal have addressed forgery challenges in probate for decades. In Childs v. Squarcia, 84 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1956), a petitioner sought revocation “on the ground that the will and codicil were both forgeries.” The case illustrates that forgery may be alleged not only against an original will but also against amendments such as codicils. Similarly, in Spinder v. Bobier, 134 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961), “Bobier filed a petition to revoke the probate of the will on the sole ground that it was a forgery.” These cases confirm that Florida law treats forgery as a standalone, sufficient ground to void probate—no additional showing of harm or motive is required once forgery is proven.
Understanding when and how to mount a will forgery challenge is essential for beneficiaries, disinherited heirs, and personal representatives who suspect that a document admitted to probate was not, in fact, executed by the decedent. The stakes are high: if the will is revoked, the estate will pass either under a prior valid will or, if none exists, by intestate succession under Florida Statutes chapter 732.
The Legal Grounds and Elements the Challenger Must Prove
To succeed on a will forgery claim in Florida probate court, the challenger bears the burden of proving two threshold elements: first, that the signature in question is not genuine, and second, that the lack of genuineness affects a material component of the will’s execution under Fla. Stat. § 732.502. Each element requires specific types of evidence and often expert testimony.
Element One: The Signature Is Not Genuine
The first element is authenticity. The petitioner must demonstrate that the testator’s signature—or the signature of a person signing on behalf of the testator, or an attesting witness signature—was not made by the person it purports to represent. This is typically established through forensic document examination. A qualified handwriting expert compares the questioned signature to known exemplars of the decedent’s or witness’s handwriting, looking for differences in pen pressure, stroke formation, tremor, speed, and other characteristics. The expert will issue a written report and, in most cases, testify at trial.
Lay witness testimony also plays a role. Family members, caregivers, or business associates who regularly observed the decedent signing documents may testify that the questioned signature does not resemble the decedent’s usual hand. While lay opinion on handwriting is admissible under Florida Evidence Code section 90.701, it is generally less persuasive than expert analysis. Courts weigh the familiarity of the lay witness with the decedent’s signature, the frequency of observation, and the recency of those observations.
Circumstantial evidence can also support a finding of forgery. If the decedent was physically incapable of signing—hospitalized, sedated, or suffering from advanced tremor—at the time the will purportedly was executed, medical records and testimony from treating physicians can corroborate that the signature could not have been made by the decedent. Likewise, if the attesting witnesses deny being present or testify they never signed, their live testimony is powerful evidence of forgery.
Element Two: The Forgery Affects Compliance with Fla. Stat. § 732.502
Proving the signature is forged is necessary but not sufficient. The challenger must also show that the forged signature causes the will to fail one or more of the statutory formalities in section 732.502. The statute requires that the will be “signed at the end” by the testator or by another person in the testator’s presence and at the testator’s direction, and that the signing be attested by at least two witnesses who sign in the presence of the testator and in the presence of each other.
If the testator’s signature is forged, the will lacks the foundational act of execution by the testator and fails section 732.502 outright. If a witness signature is forged, the will may fail the attestation requirement. Florida courts have held that both attesting witnesses must actually sign; if one signature is a forgery, the will is not properly attested. In Jordan v. Fehr, 902 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005), “Fehr argued that the decedent’s signature on the will was a forgery; that the will was not executed in accordance with section 732.502.” The court’s language confirms that forgery analysis is inseparable from the section 732.502 formalities—forgery is the means by which the statutory requirements are violated.
It is important to distinguish forgery from other execution defects. A will may be invalid for lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, fraud, duress, or mistake, but those grounds do not necessarily involve a forged signature. Conversely, even if the decedent had capacity and was not subject to undue influence, a forged signature alone renders the will void. The challenger need not prove motive, intent, or harm—only that the signature is false and that falsity defeats compliance with the execution statute.
Who Has Standing to Bring a Will Forgery Claim
Standing to challenge a will in Florida probate is governed by Fla. Stat. § 733.212 and related case law. Only an “interested person” may file a petition to revoke probate of a will. The statute defines interested persons broadly to include heirs at law, beneficiaries under a prior will, beneficiaries under the will being challenged, creditors, and the personal representative. The key inquiry is whether the petitioner stands to gain or lose depending on the validity of the will.
Typically, will forgery challenges are brought by beneficiaries of an earlier will or by intestate heirs who would inherit if the contested will were invalidated. For example, if a decedent executed a will in 2020 leaving everything to a daughter, and a purported 2024 will emerges leaving everything to a neighbor, the daughter has standing to challenge the 2024 will on forgery grounds because she would benefit under the 2020 instrument (or by intestacy if no valid will exists).
Creditors of the estate may also have standing if the validity of the will affects their ability to collect. A personal representative may bring or join in a forgery challenge if doing so is in the best interest of the estate and its rightful beneficiaries. Conversely, a person named as a beneficiary in the challenged will ordinarily lacks standing to attack that will unless the forgery claim would result in a better distribution under a prior instrument or intestacy.
Standing must exist at the time of filing and must be maintained throughout the litigation. If the petitioner settles with the proponent or otherwise loses financial interest in the outcome, the court may dismiss the petition for lack of standing. Practitioners should verify standing at the outset and monitor it during discovery, especially if family dynamics or settlement negotiations shift the petitioner’s position.
Burden of Proof and the Evidence Typically Required in Will Forgery Litigation
Once a will is admitted to probate, Florida law affords it a presumption of validity. The burden of proof therefore rests on the party challenging the will—the petitioner seeking revocation—to establish forgery by a preponderance of the evidence. This means the petitioner must show it is more likely than not that the signature is not genuine. The standard is lower than the “clear and convincing” standard applied in some fraud and undue influence cases, but the evidence must still be sufficient to overcome the presumption that the will was duly executed.
The single most important category of evidence in a forgery case is forensic handwriting analysis. A board-certified or court-recognized document examiner will compare the questioned signature to known samples of the decedent’s or witness’s handwriting. Known samples may include signed checks, letters, medical consent forms, prior wills, deeds, or any other documents the person is known to have signed. The examiner produces a detailed report identifying similarities and differences, and will testify as to the degree of probability that the questioned signature was or was not written by the purported author.
In addition to expert testimony, Florida courts admit lay witness opinion on handwriting under Fla. Stat. § 90.701 and case law interpreting that statute. Family members, friends, accountants, or attorneys who frequently saw the decedent sign documents may testify that the signature on the will does not match the decedent’s known handwriting. Their testimony is weighed according to their degree of familiarity and the recency of their observations. A son who reviewed his mother’s signature on dozens of checks in the months before her death will be more persuasive than a distant cousin who saw the decedent sign a birthday card five years earlier.
Medical records and physician testimony are critical when the forgery theory is that the decedent was physically unable to sign. Hospital records showing the decedent was comatose, intubated, or suffering from severe hand tremor on the date the will purportedly was signed can be dispositive. A neurologist or treating physician can testify that, given the patient’s condition, it would have been impossible for the decedent to produce the signature in question. This type of evidence is particularly powerful because it does not rely on subjective interpretation of handwriting but on objective physical incapacity.
Testimony from the attesting witnesses is often the most dramatic evidence in a forgery trial. If the witnesses named on the will testify that they never signed the document, never witnessed the testator sign, or were not present together at an execution ceremony, the proponent’s case collapses. Florida courts have long recognized that witness testimony as to their own presence and actions carries great weight. Even if the witnesses admit they signed but cannot recall the circumstances, their uncertainty can undermine the proponent’s assertion that execution complied with section 732.502.
Circumstantial evidence is also admissible and can be persuasive. Evidence that the will was drafted by a person who stood to benefit, that the decedent was isolated from family at the time of execution, that the original will cannot be produced and only a photocopy is offered, or that the signature appears in a different ink or hand from the rest of the document—all these facts can support an inference of forgery. Documentary metadata, if the will was printed from a computer, can reveal when the document was created and whether it post-dates the decedent’s death or capacity.
Procedure, Deadlines, and the Statute of Limitations for Will Forgery Claims
Timeliness is critical in will forgery litigation. Florida Statutes section 733.212 governs the time within which a petition to revoke probate of a will may be filed. The statute provides that a petition to revoke probate must be filed before the earlier of entry of an order of final discharge of the personal representative or twelve months from the date the will is admitted to probate. This is a statute of repose, not a statute of limitations—it is an absolute bar that cannot be tolled for discovery, minority, or disability.
The practical effect is that a party suspecting forgery must act quickly. Once the will is admitted to probate, the clock starts. If twelve months pass, or if the personal representative obtains a final discharge, the right to challenge the will on any ground—including forgery—is extinguished. There is a narrow exception: if the petitioner can show fraud in procuring the probate order itself (for example, the proponent forged a waiver or notice), some courts have allowed a petition for relief from judgment under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540. But this is an extraordinary remedy, difficult to obtain, and not a substitute for timely filing.
For a detailed discussion of the interplay between section 733.212 and other time limits in will contests, see our guide on deadlines for contesting a will or trust in Florida statutes of limitation what happens if you miss them.
Procedurally, a forgery challenge is typically initiated by filing a petition to revoke probate in the county where the will was admitted. The petition must allege with particularity the grounds for revocation, identify the signature or signatures claimed to be forged, and state the basis for the petitioner’s standing. The petition is served on the personal representative, all interested persons, and the attorney for the estate. The probate court will set the matter for hearing, and discovery ensues.
Discovery in forgery cases is intensive. The petitioner will seek production of the original will (if it exists), all drafts and prior versions, correspondence with the drafter, financial records showing payments to the drafter or beneficiaries, medical records of the decedent, and known handwriting exemplars. Depositions of the attesting witnesses, the attorney who supervised execution, and any person present during the signing are essential. The petitioner will retain a handwriting expert early, and the proponent typically retains a rebuttal expert. Both experts will be deposed, and their reports and exhibits will be exchanged under the applicable discovery rules.
Trial in a will forgery case is before the probate judge, sitting without a jury (unless a party demands a jury trial on factual issues, which is rare in probate matters). The petitioner presents evidence first, including expert testimony and lay witnesses. The proponent then presents rebuttal evidence. The judge weighs credibility, considers the expert opinions, and issues a written order either revoking probate or denying the petition. The order is immediately appealable to the District Court of Appeal.
Common Defenses the Proponent Raises and How They Are Met
Defending against a forgery claim requires the proponent to attack the challenger’s proof and, when possible, to present affirmative evidence of authenticity. The most common defenses fall into several categories: challenging the qualifications and methodology of the petitioner’s expert, offering rebuttal expert testimony, invoking the presumption of validity that attaches once the will is admitted to probate, and presenting testimony from the attesting witnesses and supervising attorney.
Defense One: Attack the Challenger’s Expert
The proponent will scrutinize the qualifications, methods, and conclusions of the petitioner’s handwriting expert. If the expert is not board-certified, lacks experience in Florida probate litigation, or failed to examine the original document (working only from photocopies), the proponent will move to exclude or limit the expert’s testimony under Florida’s Daubert standard for expert evidence. Even if the expert is qualified, the proponent may challenge the sufficiency of the known exemplars—arguing that the samples are too few, too old, or not comparable to the questioned signature.
Cross-examination of the petitioner’s expert is often the centerpiece of the defense. The proponent’s attorney will probe inconsistencies in the expert’s report, highlight any qualifications or hedging in the expert’s opinion, and introduce evidence of natural variation in the decedent’s handwriting over time or due to illness. If the decedent’s signature varied significantly during life—due to medication, fatigue, or progressive illness—the proponent argues that differences between the questioned signature and the exemplars are within the normal range of variation, not evidence of forgery.
Defense Two: Present a Rebuttal Expert
The proponent will retain its own forensic document examiner to review the same materials and render an opinion that the signature is genuine. In a battle of experts, the court weighs the qualifications, experience, and persuasiveness of each. If both experts are highly credentialed, the court may look to corroborating lay testimony, circumstantial evidence, and the overall probabilities. A well-reasoned rebuttal opinion that addresses and refutes the specific findings of the petitioner’s expert can tip the scales in the proponent’s favor.
Defense Three: Invoke the Presumption of Validity and Self-Proving Affidavit
If the will was admitted to probate after being presented with a self-proving affidavit executed in compliance with Fla. Stat. § 732.503, the proponent will argue that the affidavit creates a presumption that the will was duly executed, including that the signatures are genuine. Section 732.503 provides that a will may be made self-proved at the time of execution by the acknowledgment of the testator and the affidavits of the witnesses, made before an officer authorized to administer oaths. The self-proving affidavit substitutes for live testimony of the witnesses at the probate hearing and carries significant weight.
However, a self-proving affidavit is not conclusive evidence of authenticity in a forgery contest. If the petitioner presents credible evidence that the testator’s or witnesses’ signatures were forged, the presumption can be rebutted. The proponent must then go beyond the affidavit and offer live testimony or additional evidence to sustain the will’s validity. In practice, if the attesting witnesses testify at trial that they did witness the execution and did sign the will, and their testimony is credible, the court will likely uphold the will even in the face of a contrary expert opinion.
Defense Four: Testimony of Attesting Witnesses and Supervising Attorney
The strongest defense to a forgery claim is live testimony from the attesting witnesses and the attorney or notary who supervised execution. If both witnesses take the stand, positively identify their signatures, and testify that they watched the decedent sign the will in their presence, the petitioner’s burden becomes significantly harder. Likewise, testimony from the drafting attorney or a paralegal present during execution can corroborate that the ceremony occurred as the will recites and that all signatures are genuine.
The proponent’s counsel will prepare these witnesses carefully, walking them through the execution ceremony step-by-step and refreshing their recollection with contemporaneous notes, file memos, or calendar entries. If the witnesses can recall specific details—where they sat, what the decedent said, how the decedent held the pen—their testimony gains credibility. Conversely, if a witness’s memory is vague or inconsistent, or if the witness admits signing without actually observing the testator, the defense is weakened.
Defense Five: Circumstantial Evidence of Authenticity
The proponent may introduce evidence that the decedent discussed the contents of the will with family or friends, expressed satisfaction with the dispositive plan, or took other actions consistent with having executed the will. For example, if the decedent told a son, “I signed my new will today and you’re the executor,” that statement is admissible as a declaration against interest or as circumstantial evidence of genuineness. Similarly, if the decedent made lifetime gifts consistent with the will’s dispositive scheme, that supports authenticity.
Financial records, appointment calendars, and correspondence can also corroborate execution. If the decedent’s calendar shows an appointment with the attorney on the date the will is dated, and the attorney’s billing records reflect a will-signing conference, those records support the proponent’s case. The absence of such corroboration, by contrast, fuels suspicion.
Remedies and Outcomes Available When Forgery Is Proven
If the probate court determines by a preponderance of the evidence that the will was forged, the court enters an order revoking probate. The effect of revocation is that the purported will is treated as void from the outset—it never had legal effect. The estate then passes either under a prior valid will, if one exists, or by intestate succession under Florida Statutes chapter 732 if no valid will can be established.
Revocation of probate triggers several practical consequences. Any distributions made by the personal representative under the void will may be subject to recovery. Beneficiaries who received property pursuant to the forged will can be compelled to return it, and any sales or encumbrances of estate assets may be unwound. The personal representative appointed under the void will is typically removed, and a new personal representative is appointed to administer the estate under the prior will or the intestacy statutes.
In addition to revoking probate, Florida courts have authority to award attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party. Fla. Stat. § 733.106(3) provides that costs may be awarded as in chancery actions, and courts have discretion to order a losing party to pay the prevailing party’s fees if the claim or defense was pursued in bad faith or was frivolous. If forgery is proven and the proponent knowingly offered a forged will, the petitioner may recover fees. Conversely, if the forgery allegation is baseless and brought solely to harass or delay, the proponent may recover fees from the petitioner.
Criminal prosecution is also a possibility. Forgery of a will is a third-degree felony under Florida law, punishable by up to five years in prison. While probate courts do not have criminal jurisdiction, they may refer suspected forgery to the State Attorney’s Office. A finding of forgery in a civil probate proceeding can serve as the foundation for a criminal investigation and prosecution. In practice, criminal charges are pursued when the evidence of forgery is overwhelming and the forger’s identity is clear—typically, a caregiver, family member, or other person with access to the decedent who stands to benefit from the forged will.
For beneficiaries harmed by a forged will, civil remedies may also include a tort action for fraud or conversion against the forger. If the forger induced the decedent to execute a prior (genuine) will in the forger’s favor, or if the forger converted estate assets during the period the forged will was in effect, the harmed beneficiaries may pursue compensatory and punitive damages. These claims are typically brought in circuit court, separate from the probate proceeding, and may be consolidated or coordinated with the probate litigation for efficiency.
Why Experienced Litigation Counsel Is Decisive in Will Forgery Cases
Will forgery litigation is among the most technically demanding and high-stakes disputes in Florida probate practice. Success requires not only a command of the statutory formalities in sections 732.502 and 732.503 and the procedural rules in chapter 733, but also the ability to marshal and present complex forensic evidence, manage expert witnesses, and cross-examine opposing experts effectively. The attorney must understand the science of handwriting analysis, the standards for admissibility of expert testimony under Florida law, and the tactical considerations that arise when lay witnesses’ memories conflict with expert opinions.
Retention of a qualified forensic document examiner early in the case is essential. The examiner must have access to the original will (not a photocopy) whenever possible, as well as a sufficient number of contemporaneous known exemplars. Counsel must coordinate with the examiner to ensure the analysis is thorough, documented, and defensible. If the original will is unavailable, counsel must be prepared to address chain-of-custody issues and to argue that a photocopy, standing alone, is insufficient to establish authenticity.
Discovery strategy is equally critical. Counsel must identify and depose all witnesses to the execution, obtain medical records that bear on the decedent’s physical ability to sign, and secure financial and correspondence records that may reveal motive or opportunity for forgery. Depositions of attesting witnesses should be conducted early, before memories fade further, and should be recorded on video if the witness is elderly or in poor health. If a witness dies or becomes incompetent before trial, the deposition transcript (or video) may be the only evidence available.
Trial preparation in a forgery case is intensive. Counsel must prepare demonstrative exhibits—enlarged copies of the questioned signature and known exemplars, side-by-side comparisons, and annotated images highlighting the features the expert relies upon. The expert must be prepared to testify clearly and persuasively, using visual aids to help the judge understand the analysis. Lay witnesses must be prepared to testify about their familiarity with the decedent’s handwriting and to withstand cross-examination designed to undermine their certainty.
Post-trial, counsel must be ready to defend the judgment on appeal. Forgery findings are reviewed for clear error or abuse of discretion, depending on whether the finding is factual or involves application of law to fact. The appellate brief must demonstrate that the trial court’s ruling is supported by competent substantial evidence in the record. If the proponent appeals, the petitioner’s counsel must file a comprehensive answer brief, preserving and defending the forgery finding and any ancillary rulings on fees or damages.
At Zoecklein Law, P.A., our litigators have handled will forgery claims involving multi-million-dollar estates, contested witness testimony, and dueling forensic experts. We understand that families facing these disputes are often navigating grief, betrayal, and financial uncertainty. Our approach is to investigate thoroughly, retain the best experts, and litigate aggressively when necessary—while remaining open to settlement if it serves the client’s interests. If you suspect a will has been forged, or if you are defending a will against forgery allegations, time is of the essence. Call us at (877) 206-0022 to discuss your case in a confidential consultation.
Common Questions About Will Forgery in Florida
What happens if only one witness signature is forged?
Florida law requires at least two attesting witnesses under Fla. Stat. § 732.502. If one witness signature is proven to be a forgery, the will fails the attestation requirement and is invalid. The fact that one signature is genuine does not cure the defect. Both witnesses must actually sign in the presence of the testator and each other. A single forged witness signature is sufficient to revoke probate.
Can I challenge a will for forgery if the original cannot be found?
Yes, but the burden is higher. If the original will was in the decedent’s possession and cannot be found after death, Florida law presumes the decedent destroyed it with intent to revoke. However, a copy may be admitted to probate if the proponent overcomes that presumption by clear and convincing evidence. In a forgery challenge to a will proved by copy, the petitioner must show not only that the copy reflects a forged signature, but that the original (if it existed) was also forged. Handwriting experts can analyze photocopies, but the analysis is less reliable, and courts may give less weight to opinions based solely on reproductions. The absence of the original often supports an inference that something is amiss, which can strengthen the petitioner’s case.
How long do I have to file a forgery claim after the will is admitted to probate?
You must file your petition to revoke probate before the earlier of twelve months from the date the will is admitted to probate or entry of an order of final discharge of the personal representative, under Fla. Stat. § 733.212. This is a strict deadline and cannot be extended for late discovery of the forgery. If you miss the deadline, you lose the right to challenge the will in probate court, although you may have other remedies such as a separate civil action for fraud or a petition for relief from judgment if you can prove fraud in obtaining the probate order itself. Those remedies are narrow and difficult to obtain, so prompt action is essential.
What is the difference between contesting a will for forgery and contesting for undue influence?
Forgery challenges the authenticity of the signature; undue influence challenges the voluntariness of the testator’s intent. A forged will involves a false signature—someone other than the testator signed the testator’s name, or a witness signature is fabricated. Undue influence, by contrast, assumes the will was signed by the testator but alleges that the testator’s free will was overborne by manipulation, coercion, or pressure from a beneficiary or other party. The two claims require different evidence: forgery cases hinge on handwriting analysis and execution testimony, while undue influence cases focus on the relationship between the influencer and the testator, confidential relationships, and suspicious circumstances. For a comprehensive discussion of undue influence litigation, see our analysis of undue influence in Florida will trust contests the carpenter test burden of proof what courts look for.
Can the personal representative be held liable if they knew the will was forged?
Yes. A personal representative owes fiduciary duties to the estate and its beneficiaries. If the personal representative knew or should have known that the will was forged and nonetheless offered it for probate, the personal representative may be removed for cause, surcharged for any losses to the estate, and potentially held liable for fraud or breach of fiduciary duty. In egregious cases, the personal representative may face criminal prosecution for fraud on the court or for conspiracy to commit forgery. Beneficiaries harmed by the forged will can pursue civil damages against a culpable personal representative. For these reasons, a nominated personal representative who has any suspicion that the will may be forged should consult independent counsel before accepting appointment or offering the will for probate.
What if I lack the funds to retain a handwriting expert?
Many probate litigators, including our firm, work on a contingency or hybrid fee basis in will contest cases where the estate is substantial and the claim has merit. In a forgery case with strong facts—such as attesting witnesses who deny signing, or clear medical evidence the decedent could not have signed—expert costs can sometimes be advanced by counsel and recovered from the estate if you prevail. Florida law allows the court to award costs, including expert fees, to the prevailing party in probate litigation. Discuss fee arrangements candidly with prospective counsel during the initial consultation. An experienced attorney can assess whether your case justifies the investment in expert testimony and can structure a fee agreement that makes litigation financially feasible.
Bottom Line: Protecting Your Rights in Will Forgery Litigation
Will forgery in Florida is a grave allegation with the power to overturn probate and redistribute an entire estate. The law provides a clear path for challenging a forged will, but success depends on prompt action, rigorous investigation, expert analysis, and skilled courtroom advocacy. Whether you are a disinherited heir who suspects a signature is not genuine, a beneficiary under a prior will, or a personal representative confronting conflicting evidence about a will’s authenticity, you need counsel who understands both the science of forensic document examination and the litigation strategy required to prevail in probate court.
At Zoecklein Law, P.A., we have represented clients in some of Florida’s most complex and contentious will and trust disputes. Our team includes litigators with decades of combined experience in probate litigation, access to top-tier forensic experts, and a track record of successful outcomes in forgery, undue influence, and capacity cases. We know that these disputes are not just legal—they are deeply personal, often involving family betrayal and the loss of a loved one’s legacy. We approach every case with the seriousness it deserves, the empathy our clients need, and the tenacity required to win.
If you believe a will has been forged, or if you are facing a forgery allegation and need to defend the validity of a will, contact us today. Time limits are strict, and delay can forfeit your rights. Call (877) 206-0022 or visit our contact page to schedule a consultation. Let us put our litigation experience to work protecting your interests and your family’s inheritance.
Authorities Cited
- Childs v. Squarcia, 84 So. 2d 911 (Fla. 1956)
- Jordan v. Fehr, 902 So. 2d 198 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005)
- Spinder v. Bobier, 134 So. 2d 860 (Fla. 2d DCA 1961)
- Fla. Stat. § 732.502 (Execution of wills)
- Fla. Stat. § 732.503 (Self-proof of wills)
- Fla. Stat. § 733.106 (Costs and attorney fees)
- Fla. Stat. § 733.212 (Notice of administration; filing of objections; time for filing)
- Fla. Stat. § 90.701 (Opinion testimony of lay witnesses)
- Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.540 (Relief from judgment or decree)