Kentucky Trust Co. v. Gore
1946 Ky. LEXIS 533, 192 S.W.2d 749, 302 Ky. 1 (1946)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Evidence of old age, intermittent mental infirmity, or expert opinion based on hypotheticals is insufficient to invalidate a will for lack of testamentary capacity. There must be substantial evidence that the testator lacked capacity or was under undue influence at the specific time the will was executed.
Facts:
- Robert A. Campbell, Sr. (testator) was the father of six children.
- Following the death of his wife in 1939, Campbell's daughter, Mrs. Lindsey, moved into his home to act as his housekeeper, for which he paid her.
- On April 11, 1940, at the age of 83, Campbell went alone to a trust company to have his will drafted and executed.
- The will divided the bulk of his $57,000 estate equally among five of his children.
- The will specifically excluded his sixth child, Ruth C. Gore, stating that she had been amply provided for by her mother and deceased sister, Jessie.
- Mrs. Gore's daughter, Janet, had been the sole beneficiary of Jessie's will, receiving an amount in excess of $12,000.
- A strained relationship existed between Mrs. Gore and Robert, Jr. on one side, and Mrs. Lindsey on the other, but the testator maintained a good relationship with all parties.
- Campbell died on August 11, 1943, at the age of 86.
Procedural Posture:
- Ruth C. Gore and Robert A. Campbell, Jr. filed a lawsuit in a Kentucky trial court to contest the will of their father, Robert A. Campbell, Sr.
- The defendants (contestees) were the Kentucky Trust Company, as executor, and the testator's other four children.
- The case was tried before a jury, which found the will to be invalid.
- The trial court entered a judgment in favor of the contestants (Gore and Campbell, Jr.), invalidating the will.
- The contestees (appellants) appealed the trial court's judgment to the reviewing appellate court.
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 evidence of a testator's old age, intermittent mental infirmity, and expert testimony based on hypothetical questions, without direct evidence of incapacity on the day the will was executed, constitute sufficient evidence to submit the questions of testamentary capacity and undue influence to a jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Siler
No. The evidence was insufficient to support the jury's verdict, and the trial court should have directed a verdict in favor of the will's proponents. To invalidate a will, there must be more than a mere scintilla of evidence of incapacity or undue influence; speculation is not enough. The court's reasoning was that no witness testified that the testator was incapacitated on the specific day he executed the will. In contrast, the trust officer who drafted the will testified that the testator's mind was 'quite active' and 'normal.' Furthermore, letters written by the testator 29 days before and 14 days after signing the will demonstrated full mental capacity and clear reasoning. While there was evidence Campbell experienced intervals of mental decline in the years after the will was made, there was no proof of a continuous state of incapacity that would have affected him on April 11, 1940. The court dismissed the testimony of an expert witness who opined the testator lacked capacity, as the expert had not seen the testator in two or three years and was answering a hypothetical question. Similarly, the court found no evidence of undue influence, noting that the testator went alone to make his will and that the logical reason stated in the will for excluding Mrs. Gore undermined any inference of coercion.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high evidentiary standard required to overturn a will on grounds of testamentary incapacity or undue influence. By explicitly rejecting the 'scintilla rule' in favor of the 'sufficient evidence rule' in will contests, the court significantly limits the ability of juries to speculate about a testator's mental state. The case strongly protects a testator's right to dispose of their property as they see fit, even if it results in unequal treatment of heirs, so long as there is no concrete evidence of incapacity or coercion at the moment of the will's execution. It establishes that evidence of general decline, old age, or intermittent confusion is not, by itself, sufficient to challenge the validity of a will.
