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

statuteappealtrialtrustwill
attorneystatutetrialprobatewillrespondentappellant

Related Cases

In re Price’s Estate, 375 S.W.2d 900
View Case »
Clark v. Turner, 99 P.3d 736, 2004 OK CIV APP 69
View Case »
Farrell v. Mentzer, 102 Wash. 629, 174 P. 482
View Case »
Reid v. Estate of Sonder, 63 So.3d 7, 36 Fla. L. Weekly D611
View Case »
Matter of Estate of Watson, 21 Kan.App.2d 133, 896 P.2d 401
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Milum v. Marsh ex rel. Lacey, 53 S.W.3d 234

Facts

Eugene D. Lacey executed a will on July 19, 1984, in the presence of two witnesses, which was notarized and included a self-proving certificate. Although Lacey named his daughter, Judy Ann Milum, in the will, he left nothing to her and instead bequeathed the majority of his estate to a charitable trust. Milum contested the will, arguing that the beneficiaries failed to prove due execution and testamentary capacity, despite admitting that the self-proving statute was followed.

On July 19, 1984 Lacey executed a will in the presence of two witnesses pursuant to the provisions of § 474.337, the statute allowing for self-proving wills. Charles Wantuck, an attorney in Springfield, Missouri, notarized the will and, in conformance with § 437.337, signed and attached a self-proving certificate to the will.

Issue

Whether a self-proving will establishes a prima facie case that the will was duly executed and that the decedent had testamentary capacity at the time of the will's execution.

The issue squarely in front of this court is whether, in a will contest, a self-proving will establishes a prima facie case that the will was duly executed and that the decedent had the testamentary capacity at the time of the will's execution.

Rule

In Missouri, a self-proving will creates a prima facie case for due execution and testamentary capacity, shifting the burden to the contestant to provide substantial evidence to rebut this presumption.

As a matter of law, we hold that the admission to probate of a self-proving will provides a prima facie case of due execution and of testamentary capacity.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the self-proving will introduced by the beneficiaries established a prima facie case of both due execution and testamentary capacity. The court noted that Milum failed to present substantial evidence to rebut this presumption, as her arguments relied solely on the denial of paternity and did not provide evidence of Lacey's mental state at the time of the will's execution.

Once Respondents made the prima facie case by introducing Lacey's self-proving will into evidence, the burden shifted to Appellant to produce substantial evidence to rebut the prima facie case of due execution and testamentary capacity.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that the self-proving will was valid and that Lacey had testamentary capacity when he executed the will.

For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

Who won?

Beneficiaries of the will prevailed because the court found that the self-proving certificate established the validity of the will and Lacey's testamentary capacity, and Milum failed to provide sufficient evidence to contest it.

Respondents' evidence indicates that Lacey was a loner, an eccentric, and did not mesh well with society. Lacey ran his own electronic repair business, lived by himself in a residential building behind the business, and took care of himself.

You must be