Lackey v. Lackey
1954 Ala. LEXIS 552, 76 So. 2d 761, 262 Ala. 45 (1954)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To raise a presumption of undue influence in a will contest, the contestant must prove both that a dominant confidential relationship existed and that the beneficiary engaged in undue activity in the preparation or execution of the will.
Facts:
- G. W. Lackey, an 86-year-old man, owned a mercantile business and approximately 1,000 acres of farmland.
- His son, Jesse Lackey, had worked for him for decades, first for a low salary and later as a business partner, also managing his father's farms without additional pay.
- During his lifetime, G. W. Lackey had given a home or farm to each of his children except for Jesse Lackey.
- Several months before creating his will, G. W. Lackey independently told his long-time banker, D. K. Searcy, that he wanted to make a will and selected an attorney from a list provided by Searcy.
- In May 1951, after becoming ill, G. W. Lackey asked Jesse to contact Searcy to begin the will-making process and also asked Jesse if he would take care of his mother.
- Four conferences were held to draft the will, involving G. W. Lackey, his wife, his banker, his chosen attorney, and a tax consultant.
- Jesse Lackey attended only one of the four conferences, at his father's request, to provide financial documents and secure property appraisals for tax planning; he made no suggestions regarding the will's contents.
- The final will, executed on May 29, 1951, bequeathed the family home to Jesse Lackey after his mother's death, stating this was for his years of service, while dividing the rest of the estate among the other children, with one granddaughter receiving a lesser bequest.
Procedural Posture:
- Luther Lackey, a son of the deceased G. W. Lackey, filed a contest of his father's will in the trial court.
- Jesse Lackey, another son and the will's proponent, defended the will.
- The contest was based on grounds of mental incapacity and undue influence.
- At trial, the court gave an affirmative charge (equivalent to a directed verdict) in favor of the proponent, Jesse Lackey, on the issue of undue influence, thereby removing that question from the jury's consideration.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the proponent, upholding the validity of the will.
- The contestant, Luther Lackey, filed a motion for a new trial, which the trial court overruled.
- Luther Lackey then appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
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 showing a beneficiary provided administrative assistance in the will-making process at the testator's request, within the context of a close parent-child business relationship, create a presumption of undue influence sufficient to present the issue to a jury?
Opinions:
Majority - Stakely, Justice
No. Evidence that a beneficiary provided administrative assistance at the testator's request does not, by itself, create a presumption of undue influence. To raise such a presumption, a contestant must prove both a dominant confidential relationship and undue activity in the execution of the will by or for a favored beneficiary. Here, the contestant failed to show undue activity. The court noted the prima facie presumption that a parent is the dominant party in a parent-child relationship. While a jury might infer Jesse had become dominant due to his father's age and his business role, there was no evidence of 'undue activity.' Jesse did not select the attorney, was not present for the substantive discussions about the will's contents, and made no suggestions. His actions, such as procuring financial documents, were solely in compliance with his father's 'free and voluntary instructions.' The court also questioned whether Jesse was a 'favored beneficiary' in the legal sense, since his father had already provided significant gifts of real estate to all his other children during his lifetime, and the will explicitly stated the bequest to Jesse was in consideration for his many years of service.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies and reinforces the high evidentiary bar for proving undue influence, particularly the 'undue activity' prong. It establishes that a beneficiary's participation in the mechanical or administrative aspects of will preparation, when done at the testator's explicit request, does not constitute the kind of 'undue' activity necessary to raise a legal presumption of influence. The case protects the testator's autonomy by distinguishing between helpful compliance and coercive procurement. For future cases, it means that contestants cannot rely on a beneficiary's mere presence or ministerial assistance during the will-making process to get their claim to a jury; they must show active, self-serving involvement in shaping the testamentary dispositions.
