Lipper v. Weslow
369 S.W.2d 698 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To set aside a will for undue influence, a contestant must provide probative evidence that the testator's free agency and will were overcome and supplanted by another's; evidence of a confidential relationship, opportunity, and motive for influence, by itself, is insufficient.
Facts:
- Sophie Block had two living children, G. Frank Lipper and Irene Lipper Dover, and three grandchildren from a deceased son, Julian Weslow.
- G. Frank Lipper, an attorney, lived next door to his mother, Sophie Block, had a key to her house, and bore malice toward his deceased half-brother, Julian.
- Lipper drafted a will for his mother which she executed on January 30, 1956, approximately three weeks before her death at age 81.
- The will left the bulk of Block's estate to Lipper and his sister, Irene, while explicitly disinheriting her three grandchildren.
- The will, as drafted by Lipper, contained a lengthy paragraph detailing Block's purported reasons for the disinheritance, citing the grandchildren's unfriendly and distant attitude.
- Evidence indicated that some factual assertions in the will regarding the grandchildren's lack of contact were inaccurate, as they had sent cards and flowers more frequently than the will suggested.
- At the time she signed the will, Sophie Block was of sound mind, had a strong will, and was in good physical health for her age.
- Prior to and after executing the will, Block told several disinterested individuals that she intended to leave her grandchildren nothing because of their perceived neglect.
Procedural Posture:
- Julian Weslow, Jr., Julia Weslow Fortson, and Alice Weslow Sale filed a will contest against G. Frank Lipper and Irene Lipper Dover in a Texas trial court.
- Following a trial, a jury returned a verdict finding that Sophie Block's will was procured by undue influence.
- The trial court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict, setting the will aside.
- The defendants, G. Frank Lipper and Irene Lipper Dover, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Civil Appeals of Texas, Waco.
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 establishing that a will's primary beneficiary, who was also the testator's son and attorney, had a confidential relationship, opportunity, and motive to influence the testator constitute legally sufficient evidence to support a jury's finding of undue influence?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice McDonald
No. Evidence of a confidential relationship, motive, and opportunity for undue influence is not legally sufficient to nullify a will without further proof that the testator's free will was actually subverted. The contestants established that Lipper had the opportunity and perhaps a motive to influence his mother, but this merely 'sets the stage.' They failed to provide any probative evidence that Lipper actually substituted his mind and will for that of the testatrix. The court gave significant weight to the undisputed evidence that the testatrix was of sound mind and strong will, and that she independently expressed her reasons for disinheriting her grandchildren to three disinterested witnesses after the will was executed. While the disposition of property may seem unnatural, a person of sound mind has the legal right to dispose of their property as they wish, and suspicion of influence does not overcome direct evidence of the testator's independent intent.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high evidentiary threshold required to prove undue influence in Texas, particularly when the testator is of sound mind. It establishes that circumstantial evidence of opportunity and motive is insufficient on its own; a contestant must affirmatively prove that the testator's free will was actually overcome. The decision strongly reinforces the principle of testamentary freedom, allowing a testator to make an 'unnatural' disposition of property, provided it is their own choice. This precedent makes it significantly more difficult for will contestants to succeed by merely casting suspicion on a beneficiary who was in a position of trust, requiring instead concrete evidence of coercion or control.
