Dennison v. Roberts
| Citation | 439 S.W.2d 577 |
| Parties | (Mrs.) Lottie DENNISON et al., Appellants, v. (Mrs.) Addie ROBERTS et al., Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 29 November 1968 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky |
Blakey Helm, Louisville, G. D. Milliken, Jr., Bowling Green, for appellants.
Edwin I. Baer, Louisville, for appellees.
The testatrix, Sarah G. Kelley, died on December 6, 1965, leaving an estate of around $60,000 and a will dated March 10, 1964. Mrs. Kelley was 85 years old when she died, and 84 when she made the will a year earlier. Her husband and children had all predeceased her. Her collateral kin consisted of three sisters and the issue of two deceased brothers and a deceased sister. She left $100 each to two of the sisters and $50 each to all of her nieces and nephews except for two. The residue, which was the bulk of the estate, was left to the third sister, Mrs. Addie Roberts, who is the primary appellee herein.
The heirs, other than Mrs. Roberts, attacked the will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence. The issue of lack of testamentary capacity was submitted to the jury who found in favor of the will. The appellants do not seriously argue that the verdict was against the evidence and we do not believe that it could be so found. However, they argue that the issue of undue influence should have been submitted to the jury. They also argue that they should have had a directed verdict because of the failure of the propounders of the will to file an answer to their complaint in circuit court.
Mrs. Kelley was in her eighties when the will in question was executed and several months thereafter was found incompetent. The contestants introduced much evidence to show that her mental condition was weak during the entire period in question. The appellees introduced contradictory evidence. Evidence of weak mental condition is relevant on the issue of undue influence. Creason v. Creason, Ky., 392 S.W.2d 69 (1965). There was also evidence to prove that the will represents an unnatural disposition of her property. Mrs. Addie Roberts, the chief beneficiary under the will, had been close to and had helped the testatrix for many years. However, in her declining years, Mrs. Kelley had also been close to and had called upon other relatives, especially another sister, Mrs. Katie Frierson. Mrs. Frierson came from Bowling Green to care for Mrs. Kelley on a fairly regular basis. There was also evidence that certain nieces and nephews had done a great deal for Mrs. Kelley. This is not an extremely blatant case of an unnatural disposition but there is some evidence of it. However, weak mental capacity and an unnatural disposition are not enough to warrant an instruction on undue influence. There must be some evidence either direct or circumstantial of the exercise of undue influence. Teegarden v. Webster, 304 Ky. 18, 199 S.W.2d 728 (1947). In this respect the appellants have failed. They do not contend in their brief that the principal beneficiary was aware of the terms of the will or had a part in its execution. They can point to no untoward conduct on her part. In fact, Mrs. Kelley was apparently very reticent about her will. No one was consulted or told of it, although there were many members of the family around Mrs. Kelley, often alone with her. They can point to no evidence that Mrs. Roberts even knew of the will. In fact, the only evidence of undue influence they point to is the conversation between Mrs. Kelley and her lawyer in preparing the will, but this evidence shows, if anything, a lack of awareness of the size of her estate. This could only go to lack of mental capacity, which has already been decided. There is no contention that Mrs. Roberts knew the attorney more than having been introduced to him by Mrs. Kelley once. And there is no evidence of any conspiracy between Mrs. Roberts and the attorney. There is simply no evidence of undue influence here or any evidence fom which such a conclusion could be drawn. Appellants point to Sutton v. Combs, Ky., 419 S.W.2d 775, as submitting the question of undue influence to the jury on the basis of unnatural disposition and weak mental capacity with no evidence of undue influence. However, in the Sut...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Getty v. Getty
...verdict if it is unaccompanied by at least slight evidence demonstratingundue influence was actually exerted. See Dennison v. Roberts, 439 S.W.2d 577, 578 (Ky. 1968); Gibson v. Gipson, 426 S.W.2d 927, 928 (Ky. 1968). Rich and Sesamie also argue the estate plan Dick executed on October 27, 2......
-
Fischer v. Heckerman
...there is still room for a directed verdict if the evidence adduced is such that reasonable men would not disagree. Dennison v. Roberts, Ky., 439 S.W.2d 577, 578 (1969). In sum, appellants have presented sufficient evidence to survive a motion for summary judgment since the record does estab......
-
Bennett v. Bennett
...capacity and undue influence to the jury for its determination. Cf. Raymond v. Schloemer, Ky., 409 S.W.2d 809 (1966) In Dennison v. Roberts, Ky., 439 S.W.2d 577 (1968), although we held under the facts there presented that the trial court's refusal to submit the case to the jury was not err......