
    Samuel H. HALL, Jr., and Yassin S. Hall, Appellants, v. Elsa Emily HALL, etc., Appellee.
    No. 3D15-12.
    District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
    April 27, 2016.
    
      Avila Rodriguez Hernandez Mena & Ferri and Wilfredo A. Rodriguez, for appellants.
    Chepenik Trushin -and ■ Bradley H, Trushin and Stacy B. Rubel; Andrew C. Simpsoii (Christiansted, VT), for appellee.
    Before LAGOA, SALTER and SCALES, JJ.
   SALTER, J.

This is an appeal from adversary proceedings in the probate, court — an undue influence.claim and petition to revoke the probate of a will and-trust. The trial court devoted , two weeks of trial time to the claims, ■ carefully, considered evidentiary rulings relating,to the,expert psychiatric witnesses, viewed a video of the decedent’s execution of the selfrproving will, and committed "no error in denying the petition.

Ordinarily the appellate phase of this intra-family .dispute — launched by the appellants against a logical and equitable program of lifetime gifts and transfers after death by a mother of four and grandmother of three — would be consigned to “a quiet interment in the form of a PCA.” We affirm, and write only to reiterate a fundamental tenet of appellate advocacy.

The Light Most Favorable

The “light most'favorable” is not a" reference to a Florida sunrise. The appellants are obligated to provide a statement of facts and to interpret the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the conclusions- of the finder of fact. Turner v. Lorber, 360 So.2d 101, 104 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978). Expressed another way,' “Where there is-competent substantial evidence to support the trial court’s conclusions we must affirm.” James P. Driscoll, Inc., a Gould, 521 So.2d 301, 302 (Fla. 3d DCA 1988) (citing Turner).

The presentation of the record by the appellants in their initial brief in the present case is not a summary of the evidence in the light most favorable to' the- trial court’s findings. For example, the trial court found that the appellants were not credible, and this conclusion is supported by inconsistencies in their testimony.

The tmdue influence- claim regarding the late Mrs. Hall’s testamentary capacity was rejected based on the testimony of persons present at the execution of the challenged documents and expert testimony following a review of medical records and videotape of the decedent. The ap-pellee’s expert regarding mental capacity was a board-certified - physician with an M.D. degree from Yale University, a residency at Harvard, and board certification in geriatric psychiatry, serving as medical director of Miami Jewish Health Systems and as an associate professor at the University of Miami Medical School.

The record, viewed in this required light, further establishes that the challenged documents were properly .executed, that they were prepared at the request of the decedent, and that they were not actively procured by the appellee (a daughter) serving as personal representative under the will. The appellee established that she was not a substantial beneficiary under the trust.

For these reasons, the trial court’s “Order Denying Petition for Revocation of Probate of Will and Trust” is affirmed, as is the subsequent order denying rehearing.

■ Affirmed. 
      
      . University of Miami v. Expósito ex rel.• Gonzalez, 87 So,3d 803, 812 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012) (Schwartz, S J., specially concurring).
     
      
      . The trial court also watched the video of the 2011 will-signing. The video was played in open court and admitted into evidence.
     