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

plaintiffappealtrialprobatewillcompliance
plaintiffappealtrialprobatewillcompliance

Related Cases

Swift v. Hiscock, 344 Mass. 691, 183 N.E.2d 875
View Case »
Britt v. Upchurch, 327 N.C. 454, 396 S.E.2d 318
View Case »
Scarlett v. Hopper, 110 Or.App. 457, 823 P.2d 435
View Case »
Thomas v. Summers, 329 Ga.App. 250, 764 S.E.2d 578
View Case »
Needham v. Hamilton, 459 A.2d 1060
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Whitacre v. Crowe, 972 N.E.2d 659, 2012 -Ohio- 2981

Facts

Kay Whitacre had five adult children, with her will naming her daughter Victoria as the sole beneficiary and her son Michael as executor. The other three children, Shawn, Angie, and Nick, were not mentioned in the will and subsequently filed a complaint to contest it. They argued that the will was not executed according to the formalities required by law, specifically that the witnesses were not in the conscious presence of the testator when they attested to the will. The trial court agreed and revoked the earlier order admitting the will to probate.

Kay Whitacre had five adult children, with her will naming her daughter Victoria as the sole beneficiary and her son Michael as executor. The other three children, Shawn, Angie, and Nick, were not mentioned in the will and subsequently filed a complaint to contest it. They argued that the will was not executed according to the formalities required by law, specifically that the witnesses were not in the conscious presence of the testator when they attested to the will. The trial court agreed and revoked the earlier order admitting the will to probate.

Issue

Did the trial court err in finding that the execution of Kay Whitacre's will did not meet the formalities required under R.C. 2107.03?

Did the trial court err in finding that the execution of Kay Whitacre's will did not meet the formalities required under R.C. 2107.03?

Rule

Under R.C. 2107.03, a will must be attested and subscribed in the conscious presence of the testator by two or more competent witnesses who saw the testator subscribe or heard the testator acknowledge the signature.

Under R.C. 2107.03, a will must be attested and subscribed in the conscious presence of the testator by two or more competent witnesses who saw the testator subscribe or heard the testator acknowledge the signature.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the witnesses were in the conscious presence of the testator at the time they attested to the will. It found that the witnesses viewed the signing through a video monitor and were not physically present with the testator, which did not satisfy the statutory requirement. The court concluded that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs demonstrated that the witnesses were not in Kay's range of vision and that she could not hear them, thus failing to meet the requirements of R.C. 2107.03.

The court analyzed whether the witnesses were in the conscious presence of the testator at the time they attested to the will. It found that the witnesses viewed the signing through a video monitor and were not physically present with the testator, which did not satisfy the statutory requirement. The court concluded that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs demonstrated that the witnesses were not in Kay's range of vision and that she could not hear them, thus failing to meet the requirements of R.C. 2107.03.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the will was not executed in compliance with the statutory requirements, and therefore the earlier order admitting the will to probate was properly revoked.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the will was not executed in compliance with the statutory requirements, and therefore the earlier order admitting the will to probate was properly revoked.

Who won?

Shawn, Angie, and Nick prevailed in the case because the court found that the will was not executed in accordance with the formalities required by law.

Shawn, Angie, and Nick prevailed in the case because the court found that the will was not executed in accordance with the formalities required by law.

You must be