Ky. Decisions: Court of Appeals - Dec. 22, 2005

Court of Appeals Minutes with Links to All Decisions for this date.

Published Decisions - Dec. 22, 2005 - COA

GRAHAM V. ESTATE OF OWENS
PROBATE LAW - Lost Wills and Undue Influence
2004-CA-001849
Published 
AFFIRMING
SCHRODER
Date: 12/22/2005

In this undue influence case, the jury found for the proponent of the Will. The proponent was the decedent’s son. The appellants were the decedent’s three daughters. After a jury held that their brother had not exerted undue influence on the decedent, they appealed and alleged three reversible errors. Prior to discussing each error, the Court of Appeals noted that the alleged errors “carry as much weight as the three daughters’ concern for their father.” Not a propitious start.

 

The three errors deserve brief discussion. First, the Court of Appeals did not find error in the Circuit Court’s refusal to admit a prior unsigned will into evidence because no one could testify—other than speculation—to authenticate it. Second, the Circuit Court did not err in refusing to admit testimony that the son had allowed his father to live in squalor. The daughters wanted to introduce that evidence to rebut the Will’s statement that the provisions for the son were because he was the only child to have cared for his father. The Court of Appeals that the testimony would have been about the father’s living conditions long after he signed the will. Citing Bye v. Mattingly, the Court noted that evidence would have been irrelevant to the undue influence questions. Finally, the Court of Appeals held that the will was not ambiguous.

 

Thanks to Scott Byrd, Patrick Bouldin,  John Hamlett, Cherry Henault, Sam Hinkle, Suzan J. Hixon, Chad Kessinger,  Stephen Keller,  Michelle Eisenmenger Mapes , Peter Naake,  Paul C. O'Bryan, Alma Puissegur, Richard Schiller, Paul Schurman, and James Worthington for their efforts in digesting Kentucky's appellate decisions.