ROBERT TITTLE, vs MONTGOMERY DAHM,
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Third District Court of Appeal State of Florida Opinion filed October 14, 2020. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing. ________________ No. 3D19-1905 Lower Tribunal No. 18-33-M ________________ Robert Tittle, Appellant, vs. Montgomery Dahm, Appellee. An appeal from the Circuit Court for Monroe County, Mark H. Jones, Judge. James J. Dorl, P.A., and James J. Dorl, for appellant. Law Offices of David W. Evoy, P.L., and David W. Evoy (Coconut Creek), for appellee. Before SCALES, HENDON, and MILLER, JJ. MILLER, J. Appellant, Robert Tittle, seeks review of a lower court order denying his petition for the administration of a will, grounded upon a finding of undue influence. We conclude the factors delineated in In re Carpenter’s Estate, 253 So. 2d 697, 702 (Fla. 1971), are not exhaustive, but merely illustrative, designed to “aid trial judges in looking for those warning signals pointing to active procurement of a will by beneficiary.” See Blinn v. Carlman, 159 So. 3d 390, 391 (Fla. 4th DCA 2015); Pate v. Mellen, 275 So. 2d 562, 565 (Fla. 1st DCA 1972). Accordingly, and honoring the “trial court’s superior vantage point in assessing the credibility of witnesses” and resolving factual disputes, we decline to disturb the judicious and measured conclusion rendered below. Porter v. State, 788 So. 2d 917, 923 (Fla. 2001); see In re Krieger’s Estate, 88 So. 2d 497, 498 (Fla. 1956); Coppock v. Carlson, 547 So. 2d 946, 946-47 (Fla. 3d DCA 1989); In re Lamberson’s Estate, 407 So. 2d 358, 362 (Fla. 5th DCA 1981); see also Peacock v. Du Bois, 90 Fla. 162, 166, 105 So. 321, 322 (Fla. 1925). Affirmed. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
