Validity of Wills. Louie Villwok died on November 12, 1984, ...

[future617RT]

Validity of Wills. Louie Villwok died on November 12, 1984, leaving an executed will that left everything to his present wife, Rose. If Rose had predeceased him, according to the will, his three daughters from a previous marriage would have received a general bequest of money and a portion of the residue of the estate. When the will was offered for probate, the decedent's daughters contested the will. They claimed, among other things, that the will was a result of undue influence on the part of Rose. At the hearing, the daughters presented evidence to show that after Rose married the decedent, the relationship between her and the decedent's children deteriorated; that the decedent drank heavily on a daily basis and was intoxicated most of the time; and that Rose made concerted efforts to come between the decedent and his daughters. Each daughter also testified that her father had made statements to her expressly indicating that he did not want Rose or her children to have his property and that he wanted his daughters to receive all of his property. The probate court entered summary judgment in favor of Rose. What will the appellate court decide? Discuss fully.

Question 2

Drug agents employed by the federal government are:
 a. not required to participate in drug-testing programs
  b. only required to participate in drug-testing programs if they have a criminal history c. only required to participate in drug-testing programs if they receive a promotion
  d. required to participate in drug-testing programs e. none of the other choices are correct

[enass]

Answer to Question 1

Validity of wills
The appellate court held that summary judgment was not proper since the claims of the daugh-ters raised a factual question of undue influence. The court discussed the problem of proving that undue influence has been exercised. Undue influence is usually surrounded by all possible secrecy. It is almost always difficult to prove by direct and positive proof. It is largely a matter of inference from facts and circumstances surrounding the testator, his life, character, and mental condition, as shown by the evidence, and the opportunity afforded designing persons for the exercise of improper control. At trial, a contestant is not limited to the bare facts that he or she may be able to adduce, but he or she is entitled to the benefit of all inferences which may be legitimately derived from such established facts. Due to the surreptitious nature of undue influence, evidence in support of such an allegation is usually circumstantial in nature. Such evidence shows a course of conduct over a period of time intended to influence the mind of the testator. Undue influence sufficient to defeat a will is such manipulation as destroys the free agency of the testator and substitutes another's purpose for that of the testator. The court held that evidence of the daughters' allegations should be heard to determine whether there was sufficient evidence of undue influence.

Answer to Question 2

d

[future617RT]

TYSM

[Laurenleakan]

Gracias!