Wilson v. Payton

• Decision Date: 14 October 1948
• Docket Number: 5 Div. 437.
• Citation: 251 Ala. 411,37 So.2d 499
• Parties: WILSON v. PAYTON et al.
• Court: Alabama Supreme Court

37 So.2d 499

251 Ala. 411

WILSON v. PAYTON et al.

5 Div. 437.

Supreme Court of Alabama

October 14, 1948

Rehearing Denied Dec. 2, 1948.

Jos J. Mullins and Gerald & Gerald, all of Clanton, for appellant.

Omar L. Reynolds and Reynolds & Reynolds, all of Clanton, for appellees.

LAWSON, Justice.

Appellant propounded for probate what was purported to be the last will and testament of Andrew J. Wilson, deceased, wherein appellant was named as the main beneficiary and executor. Contest of appellees was framed in several aspects, but from this record it clearly appears that contestants' contention was two-fold: that the execution of the will resulted from undue influence exercised by proponent; and that the testator was of unsound mind and lacking in testamentary capacity.

We will not consider all the assignments of error since the court is clear to the conclusion that the evidence offered to sustain the two aspects of appellees' contest was wholly insufficient to that end and should not have been allowed to prevail against proponent's motion for a new trial.

As for the ground of contest that the will was the result of undue influence, we think proponent was entitled to the general charge. We have repeatedly held that when a will is contested on the ground of undue influence, the burden is on contestant, in order to raise a presumption of undue influence, to prove a dominant confidential relationship and undue activity in the execution of a will by or for a favored beneficiary. Hyde et al. v. Norris et al., 250 Ala 518, 35 So.2d 181, and cases there cited.

Appellant, proponent below, was a favored beneficiary. The testator was proponent's father and such a relationship is per se confidential. It is presumed prima facie that in transactions between parent and child the parent is the dominant party and that they are free from undue influence and in such cases the burden is upon contestant to show that time and circumstances have reversed the order of nature, and that the dominance of the parent has been displaced by subservience to the child. Betz et al. v. Lovell et al., 197 Ala. 239, 72 So. 500; Hawthorne v. Jenkins, 182 Ala. 255, 62 So. 505, Ann.Cas.1915D., 707. It may be assumed for the argument that contestants met this burden and showed that the proponent was the dominant party in such relationship. But there was an entire absence of evidence going to show that there was any activity on the part of proponent beneficiary in procuring the execution of the will, or that such influence had any connection whatever with its execution, and in the absence of such evidence a finding on the issue of undue influence in favor of contestants cannot be sustained. Alexander v. Alexander, 208 Ala. 291, 94 So. 53; Betz v. Lovell, supra; Scarbrough v. Scarbrough, 185 Ala. 468, 64 So. 105.

The requisite mental capacity to make a will has been repeatedly defined by this court and these words, taken from Bulger v. Ross, 98 Ala. 267, 271, 12 So. 803, 804, express the standard therefor as that standard has been consistently declared and maintained by our later adjudications:

'Testamentary capacity does not necessarily imply a mind wholly...