In Re Succession of Gilbert
850 So. 2d 733, 2003 La. App. LEXIS 1676, 2003 WL 21290525 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To nullify a will on the grounds of undue influence, a challenger must prove that the influencer's control was so substantial as to substitute their own volition for the testator's, and this influence must have been operative at the specific time the will was executed.
Facts:
- Yvonne G. Gilbert, the decedent, had three adult children who lived out-of-state.
- Hobart 'Woody' Woodruff, a friend with no blood relation, was Gilbert's companion and caretaker during her final illness.
- In June 2000, Gilbert was diagnosed with several serious medical conditions and her health deteriorated after she refused surgery.
- On June 12, 2000, Gilbert granted Woodruff power of attorney for her medical and financial decisions.
- On June 16, 2000, Gilbert executed her last will and testament, which named Woodruff as the executor.
- The will bequeathed Gilbert's house, personal property, and all mineral interests to Woodruff, with the remainder of the estate going to her three children.
- Gilbert's daughter alleged Woodruff isolated her mother, monitored her phone calls, and told her that her family did not care for her to gain influence.
Procedural Posture:
- Darlynn G. Ware, the decedent's daughter, filed a petition in trial court to nullify her mother's will and disqualify the executor, Hobart Woodruff.
- The defendants were the Estate of Yvonne Gilbert and, after Woodruff's death, the executrix of his estate.
- At the close of the petitioner's case at trial, the defendants moved for a directed verdict.
- The trial court granted the defendants' motion and dismissed Ware's petition, finding she presented no evidence of undue influence.
- Darlynn G. Ware (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a non-related caregiver's significant involvement in a testator's life, including monitoring communications and making negative statements about her family, constitute undue influence sufficient to nullify a will when the challenger fails to present evidence that the testator's volition was impaired at the time of the will's execution?
Opinions:
Majority - Williams, J.
No. The caregiver's actions did not constitute undue influence sufficient to nullify the will because the challenger failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the caregiver's influence substituted his volition for the testator's at the moment the will was executed. Under Louisiana Civil Code art. 1479, undue influence requires proof that the influencer's volition was substituted for the donor's. While art. 1483 lowers the burden of proof to a 'preponderance of the evidence' when a confidential relationship exists with a non-relative, the petitioner still failed to meet this burden. The court emphasized that the influence must be operative at the time the testament is executed. The petitioner presented general allegations of control and isolation but provided no specific evidence of coercion during the will's execution. Testimony from the decedent's physician and nurse indicated she was lucid, had no cognitive deficits, and made her own medical decisions. Thus, the evidence did not demonstrate that the decedent's 'free agency was destroyed' at the critical moment of signing.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high evidentiary bar for proving undue influence, even under the lower 'preponderance of the evidence' standard applicable to non-related fiduciaries in Louisiana. It underscores the critical importance of temporal proximity, requiring a challenger to produce evidence that the testator's will was actually overborne at the moment of execution, not just generally during the period leading up to it. The ruling signifies that evidence of a caregiver's general control, isolation of the testator, or negative comments about family may be insufficient without direct proof linking that influence to the testamentary act itself. This precedent makes it more difficult to challenge wills favoring caregivers, requiring litigants to find more than just circumstantial evidence of a controlling relationship.
