Matter of Will of Pritchard
1989 WL 72788, 443 N.W.2d 95 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish undue influence sufficient to set aside a will, a contestant must prove through more than mere suspicion or circumstantial evidence that the testator's free will was destroyed by moral coercion, substituting the influencer's intent for the testator's.
Facts:
- Paul Pritchard had three children: Mary O'Harrow, William (deceased), and John (deceased).
- John's children are the plaintiffs ('Pritchards'), while Mary O'Harrow and her children are the defendants.
- Since 1959, Mary lived in a duplex next to her parents, Paul and Bess, and relied on them for financial support.
- As Paul and Bess's health declined in the 1980s, Mary became more active in caring for them.
- Paul remained active in business and sophisticated financial matters until shortly before his death.
- On June 17, 1983, while both he and his wife were hospitalized, Paul executed a will.
- Mary O'Harrow was present in the hospital room during the execution of the will.
- The will largely favored Mary and her children, while the Pritchard grandchildren did not share in Paul's estate under the will.
Procedural Posture:
- The Pritchards (plaintiffs) filed suit in district court to challenge Paul Pritchard's will, alleging it was the product of undue influence by Mary O'Harrow.
- A jury trial was held, and the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiffs, setting aside the will.
- The defendants then filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV).
- The district court judge granted the defendants' motion, setting aside the jury's verdict and ruling that the will should be admitted to probate.
- The plaintiffs (appellants) appealed the district court's granting of the JNOV to the Court of Appeals of Iowa.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is there sufficient evidence to support a jury verdict of undue influence where the testator, though in declining health, remained strong-willed, and the primary beneficiary was his daughter who provided care, lived nearby, and was present at the will's execution?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Judge Oxberger
No. There was not sufficient evidence of undue influence to support the jury's verdict setting aside the will. To establish undue influence, a party must prove four elements: (1) susceptibility, (2) opportunity, (3) disposition to influence, and (4) a result clearly showing the effect of such influence. While Mary O'Harrow clearly had the opportunity to influence her father, the evidence for the other elements was insufficient. Paul Pritchard's failing health was countered by evidence of his 'strong will' and continued business acumen, weighing against susceptibility. Evidence of Mary's disposition to influence was disputed and weak. The unequal distribution of the estate, by itself, is not enough to prove the result was due to undue influence, especially since the disinherited grandchildren received funds from other sources. The court held that weak circumstantial evidence that only raises a suspicion is not enough; the influence must rise to the level of 'moral coercion' that destroys the testator's free will, and the record did not reflect a 'continuing and persistent effort' by Mary to do so.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the high evidentiary standard required to prove undue influence in will contests. It clarifies that the mere existence of a confidential relationship, opportunity to influence, and an unequal distribution of assets are insufficient to overcome the legal presumption of a will's validity. The court's emphasis on 'moral coercion' and the destruction of 'free will' signals to future litigants that they must provide substantial, concrete evidence of overpowering influence, not just speculative or circumstantial evidence. This decision protects a testator's freedom to dispose of their property as they see fit, even if the result appears inequitable to some family members.
Unlock the full brief for Matter of Will of Pritchard