McDaniel v. McDaniel
707 S.E.2d 60, 2011 Fulton County D. Rep. 542, 288 Ga. 711 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A will can be invalidated on the grounds of undue influence and fraud if there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that a beneficiary made material misrepresentations to a vulnerable testator, which overcame the testator's free will and directly resulted in a drastic change to the testamentary scheme.
Facts:
- In 2002, Luther Lee McDaniel (the testator) and his wife executed wills leaving their estate equally to their two sons, Jerry McDaniel (the propounder) and Charles McDaniel (the caveator).
- In 2006, Charles moved in with his parents to care for his mother, who had Alzheimer's, and, with their consent, was added to their bank accounts to manage their financial affairs.
- The testator's wife died on December 10, 2006, after which the testator, who was 92, began exhibiting increased signs of confusion and declining mental status.
- Jerry and his wife encouraged Charles to take a vacation to Florida immediately after their mother's death, assuring him they would stay with the testator.
- While Charles was in Florida, Jerry and his wife went through the testator's financial records and falsely convinced him that Charles had stolen all his money, left him 'broke,' and had permanently moved to Florida.
- Acting on these false beliefs, the testator became distraught and, with Jerry's assistance, removed Charles's name from all joint bank accounts.
- On January 5, 2007, Jerry brought the testator to an attorney's office, where the testator executed a new will that disinherited Charles and left the vast majority of the estate to Jerry.
- Jerry also obtained a durable power of attorney and subsequently used it to convert the testator's assets into joint accounts with himself, granting himself survivorship rights.
Procedural Posture:
- Jerry McDaniel (the propounder) filed a petition in the probate court for the probate in solemn form of his father's 2007 will.
- Charles McDaniel (the caveator) filed a caveat challenging the will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and fraud.
- The case was tried before a jury in the probate court.
- The propounder moved for a directed verdict to uphold the will, which the probate court denied.
- The jury returned a verdict finding the will was the product of undue influence and fraud.
- The probate court entered a judgment on the jury's verdict, denying the 2007 will's admission to probate.
- The propounder (as appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Georgia.
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 sufficient evidence of undue influence and fraud exist to invalidate a will when one son, after his mother's death, convinces his elderly and confused father that his other son stole all his money and abandoned him, leading the father to execute a new will that disinherits the accused son?
Opinions:
Majority - Nahmias, Justice
Yes. A will is invalid if procured by undue influence or fraud, and sufficient evidence supported the jury's verdict on both grounds. The court found that a wide range of circumstantial evidence demonstrated undue influence, including: the testator's advanced age and declining mental acuity; the propounder's actions in poisoning the testator's mind against the caveator with false information; the propounder's active participation in the preparation of the new will; the isolation of the testator from the caveator; and the radical departure from the testator's previous, long-standing estate plan. Similarly, the jury's finding of fraud was supported by evidence that the propounder made deliberate misrepresentations to the testator—that the caveator had stolen his money and abandoned him—which the testator relied on and which directly caused him to disinherit the caveator.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the legal principle that undue influence and fraud in will contests can be established through a compelling collection of circumstantial evidence, even without direct proof. The court emphasizes that factors such as the testator's vulnerability, a beneficiary's active role in procuring the will, the isolation of the testator, and a sudden, unnatural change in the estate plan are highly probative. This case serves as a clear illustration for future probate litigation of the type of fact pattern that can successfully overcome the high bar for invalidating a duly executed will, providing a roadmap for challenging wills procured under suspicious circumstances.
