Burke v. Thomas
Decision Date | 13 June 1968 |
Docket Number | 3 Div. 254 |
Citation | 211 So.2d 903,282 Ala. 412 |
Parties | Lee BURKE and Tom Sanders v. May THOMAS, as Executrix. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Gray & Seay, Montgomery, for appellants.
Hill, Robison & Belser, Montgomery, for appellee.
Jury and verdict, followed by judgment, in the circuit court of Montgomery County, sustaining validity of the last will and testament of Lucy Jackson. Appellants contested the will on the ground of mental incapacity of testatrix to make the will, and on the further ground that the sole beneficiaries of said will, Mary Thomas and Robert Thomas, exerted undue and improper influence on said testatrix that induced her to make the will.
There are thirteen assignments that assert error on the part of the trial court when the contest was tried. Not all of these assignments are insisted on, or are properly argued to invite this court's review. Bates v. Rentz, 262 Ala. 681, 81 So.2d 349(7). We will address our review to those assignments that are properly argued, and will omit consideration of the others.
It appears from the evidence that testatrix was approximately seventy-three years of age and bedridden with paralysis when she signed the will here in question. Her signature was impressed by mark on January 27, 1965, in the presence of Judge D. Eugene Loe and his wife, both of whom signed as witnesses to the instrument.
We will not set forth or summarize all of the testimony of Judge and Mrs. Loe as to the circumstances attending the execution of the will at the home of the testatrix, but will recite some of the salient observations of the witnesses when they testified.
It appears that Judge Loe had known the testatrix over a period of many years prior to the execution of the will. The decedent had been a faithful and acceptable client for many years and had befriended Judge Loe many times. He had drawn a prior will or two for her. She frequently sought his legal advice on business transactions pertinent to her frugal and limited income.
It appears that a few days prior to January 27, 1965, when testatrix signed the will, Judge Loe received a telephonic request to prepare a will for this client. He delayed doing so, but on the date the will was executed, Juge Loe received a telephone call from Mary Thomas, one of the beneficiaries, to prepare a will for his client. Judge Loe elicited from Mary Thomas such information as would enable him to prepare the will in his office, and avoid its preparation at the home of his client without the aid of a secretary or typewriter. He left blank spaces in the will for insertion of the names of the beneficiaries and of the executrix. These spaces he filled in when he got to the home of his client.
Judge Loe left his wife in the automobile and went into his client's home alone. Mary Thomas was standing in the hallway near the door leading into the room of his client who was in bed and physically handicapped with a stroke of paralysis. He ascertained from his client the name of the person to be nominated as executrix. The beneficiaries were to be Mary Thomas and Robert Thomas, with the former to be nominated as executrix. These names were inserted in the will (in the handwriting of Judge Loe) at the proper places.
There was no person present in the house who was eligible to witness the will, other than Judge Loe. Rather than wait thirty minutes for a witness to reach the residence, Judge Loe invited his wife to come in and sign as a witness. Both Judge Loe and his wife were present when testatrix signed the will by mark. Her hand was too feeble to write her signature.
We are impressed from the testimony of Judge and Mrs. Loe that, in their judgment, the testatrix appeared fully competent mentally to appreciate and understand the contents of the will which Judge Loe read to her and made pertinent explanations of the provisions thereof.
On direct examination, Judge Loe testified:
'
* * *'
Mrs. Loe, testifying prior to her husband, stated as follows:
'Q. Now, at the time Judge Loe read this will to Lucy, both you and Lucy and Judge were in the room together?
'A. Yes.
'Q. Was there anyone else in the room?
'A. Mary was standing in the door.
'Q. There was no one else in the room that you recall?
'A. No, no, not that I recall.
'Q. Now, when Judge read the will and asked her if that's what she wanted to do, you said she stated that it was?
'A. That's right.
'Q. Was she able to talk?
'A. Oh, yes.
'Q. Did you have any conversation with her?
'A. No, when I went in, when Judge Loe came out to the car and got me and said that he wanted me to come in and witness the will, he said, 'Lucy, this is Mrs. Loe,' and she said, 'I have seen Mrs. Loe down at your office,' and that's the only conversation.
'
Mary Thomas, one of the beneficiaries and executrix, testified as to her presence in the home of testatrix when the will was signed, when she came, and the circumstances leading to her arrival on January 24, 1965. It appears that she came there to take care of testatrix during her illness; and that testatrix did not want to go to a nursing home, but wanted to remain in her own home. That none of her relatives was looking after her--Mary Thomas was perhaps distantly related to testatrix and had known her since she, Mary Thomas, was a child. It further appears that testatrix wanted to compensate Mary by making her a beneficiary of her will. It further appears that testatrix owned about 33 acres of land that she inherited, and a cow or two when Mary arrived. The State Welfare Department began providing $100 per month for the maintenance of the patient and Mary Thomas. The decedent was also drawing $40 a month social security. Mary Thomas testified:
, you know, about the will, and she wanted me to call Judge Loe, and so I called him.'
On cross-examination the witness testified:
'Q. Tell me exactly what she said the first time that she said anything about it?
'A. She said 'May', she...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wall v. Hodges
...in procuring the execution of the will." Arrington v. Working Womans' Home, 368 So.2d 851 (Ala.1979); citing Burke v. Thomas, 282 Ala. 412, 211 So.2d 903 (1968). The appellees do not even offer a scintilla of evidence that Jeanette Wall had anything to do with either will, or that she knew ......
-
Fletcher v. DeLoach
...after execution of the will, is admissible since it tends to indicate her condition when the will was signed. Burke v. Thomas, 282 Ala. 412, 417, 211 So.2d 903, 908 (1968); Haghart v. Cooley, 278 Ala. 354, 357-58, 178 So.2d 226, 228 (1965); Tucker v. Tucker, supra, 248 Ala. at 610, 28 So.2d......
-
Clifton v. Clifton
...direction of the testator, Joe Clifton. Arrington v. Working Woman's Home, 368 So.2d 851, 853 (Ala.1979), citing Burke v. Thomas, 282 Ala. 412, 211 So.2d 903 (1968). The contestant strongly urges this Court, however, to find as a matter of law that undue influence existed because Joe Clifto......
-
Bolan v. Bolan
...will, is admissible, since it tends to shed light upon the testator's condition at the time the will is executed. Burke v. Thomas, 282 Ala. 412, 417, 211 So.2d 903, 908 (1968); Craig v. Perry, 565 So.2d 171 (Ala.1990); Fletcher, Here, the witnesses to the September 9 will all testified that......