Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealverdictmotionwillcircumstantial evidence
appealverdictmotionprobatewill

Related Cases

In re Estate of Byrne, Not Reported in N.W.2d, 2014 WL 1233708
View Case »
DiCristofaro v. Beaudry, 113 R.I. 313, 320 A.2d 597
View Case »
Estate of Ihl v. Oetting, 682 S.W.2d 865
View Case »
In re Binge’s Estate, 5 Wash.2d 446, 105 P.2d 689
View Case »
Appeal of Eliot, 74 Conn. 586, 51 A. 558
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Matter of Andrews’ Will, 299 N.C. 52, 261 S.E.2d 198

Facts

Karl Arthur Andrews, the testator, died on November 27, 1976. His son, Karl Arthur Andrews, Jr., filed a caveat against the will and codicil executed in 1974 and 1975, alleging they were procured by the undue influence of his wife, Mrs. Andrews. The case involved a jury verdict in favor of the caveator, which was initially reversed by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court reviewed the evidence, including the testator's declining health and the changes in his will that favored his wife and stepson, to determine if undue influence was present.

The testator, Karl Arthur Andrews, died on 27 November 1976. A will executed by testator in 1974 and a codicil executed by him in 1975 were presented to the Clerk of Superior Court of Moore County for probate.

Issue

Whether the caveator presented a prima facie case that the testator's will was the product of undue influence in order to survive the propounders' motions for a directed verdict.

The sole issue presented by this appeal is whether caveator presented a Prima facie case that testator's will was the product of undue influence in order to survive propounders' motions for a directed verdict.

Rule

To constitute undue influence, there must be something operating on the mind of the testator that destroys free agency and results in a will that is not an expression of the testator's wishes but rather the will of another.

To constitute undue influence within the meaning of the law, there must be more than Mere influence or persuasion because a person can be influenced to perform an act that is nevertheless his voluntary action.

Analysis

The court analyzed the evidence in favor of the caveator, noting that the testator's health had deteriorated and that he was under the constant supervision of his wife. The changes in the will and codicil indicated a shift in favor of Mrs. Andrews and her son, which raised questions about the testator's free will. The court concluded that the combination of circumstantial evidence presented by the caveator was sufficient to suggest that undue influence may have occurred, warranting a jury's consideration.

Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the caveator, In re Will of Ball, supra, and giving him the benefit of all reasonable inferences arising on the evidence, we believe caveator presented sufficient evidence of undue influence to survive propounders' motion for a directed verdict made at the close of all the evidence in order to take the case to the jury.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, reinstating the jury's verdict in favor of the caveator and remanding the case for further proceedings.

The verdict and judgment for the caveator shall be reinstated. The Court of Appeals is reversed.

Who won?

Caveator (Karl Arthur Andrews, Jr.) prevailed because the Supreme Court found sufficient evidence to suggest that the will was procured by undue influence, thus allowing the case to be submitted to a jury.

Caveator's evidence, when presented in chronological order, indicated that the testator executed a number of wills and codicils prior to the will and codicil in question.

You must be