Goodall v. Crawford
1980 Tenn. App. LEXIS 409, 611 S.W.2d 602 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Ordinarily, upon proof of due execution of a will, the burden is on the contestants to prove lack of testamentary capacity or undue influence; however, this burden shifts to the proponent to affirmatively prove the testator's knowledge and free assent if suspicious circumstances surround the will's execution.
Facts:
- W.Y. McGlothlin, an elderly man who had suffered a stroke and experienced memory loss, executed three mutually exclusive wills between 1973 and his death in 1978.
- In 1973, while living with one daughter, he executed a will leaving the bulk of his estate to her and her husband.
- In 1977, while living alone and expressing bitterness toward his children, he executed a second will leaving his entire estate to a hospital.
- In April 1978, his son Leo McGlothlin brought him from Indiana to Tennessee for the stated purpose of changing his will.
- On April 21, 1978, after obtaining a doctor's statement of mental competency, W.Y. McGlothlin executed a third will leaving his entire estate to his son Leo and Leo's wife.
- Leo McGlothlin was present when his father went to the law office to have the new will prepared.
Procedural Posture:
- A will contest was initiated in the Circuit Court of Sumner County, Tennessee, by several of W.Y. McGlothlin's children (contestants) against the beneficiaries of the final will, Leo McGlothlin and his wife (proponents).
- The case was tried before a jury on the issues of testamentary capacity and undue influence.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the proponents, finding that the will dated April 21, 1978, was the valid Last Will and Testament of W.Y. McGlothlin.
- The trial court entered a judgment based on the jury's verdict.
- The contestants appealed the trial court's judgment to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial judge gave improper instructions to the jury.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the trial court err by instructing the jury that the burden of proof to show a lack of testamentary capacity or undue influence rested on the will's contestants, rather than shifting the burden to the proponent, given the circumstances surrounding the will's execution?
Opinions:
Majority - Cantrell, J.
No. The trial court did not err in its jury instructions because the circumstances surrounding the will's execution did not rise to the level of 'suspicious circumstances' necessary to shift the burden of proof to the proponent. The general rule presumes a testator's knowledge and approval of a duly executed will, casting the burden of proving incapacity or undue influence on the contestants. While an exception exists for suspicious circumstances, the evidence here did not warrant its application. The court found compelling evidence of the testator's capacity on the day the will was executed, noting that multiple disinterested witnesses testified he was of sound mind, he independently negotiated the attorney's fee, and he procured a doctor's statement of competency beforehand. These actions demonstrated that he 'knew what he was about and set out to do it with characteristic determination.' The court concluded that the trial judge's charge, taken as a whole, provided the jury with a proper statement of the legal principles governing testamentary capacity and undue influence.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the high threshold required to invoke the 'suspicious circumstances' exception that shifts the burden of proof in will contests. It establishes that the involvement of a primary beneficiary in the logistics of creating the will does not automatically trigger the exception, especially when there is strong, contemporaneous evidence of the testator's independent intent and mental clarity. The ruling reinforces the legal system's deference to a testator's expressed wishes and illustrates that contestants face a significant evidentiary hurdle. Future cases will likely look to this decision to weigh evidence of a beneficiary's involvement against direct evidence of the testator's competency at the moment of execution.
Unlock the full brief for Goodall v. Crawford