HomeMy WebLinkAbout0960 (
1
,
~
1
,
. ~ `
whc,n~ h.acl n~arric~cl ii: Auf;u~t of 1978. `I'he clau~;htc~~~s' arg,u-
m~nts on a~~>eal are su~nmarized as follows : (1) the court
erred in excludinK evidence relating to Tommy's mental ~
,
capacity ~nd the issue of undue influence; (2) the court
erred in directing a verdict on the issue of undue influence
and ~r~ental capacity; (3) the court erred in determining that
Tommy's will was nat an unnatural disposition of property;
and (4) the court erred when it found the will of Emma Lou
devised a life estate to Tommy, with the remainder passing
according to the law of inCestate succession.
The appellants raise first the issue of several
instances of excluded evidence. A~taCement made by 3an
Price that T:nu~?a Lou never liked Jean was stricken as having _
been unresponsive to a question related to where .Ian lived.
~
Jan did testify that she never witnessed any arguments be-
; . - .
tween Er-rna Lou and Jean, but that in Florida, Jean had com-
~
~ plained that she could not care for Cnana Lou and Tommy. The
~ cotirt had specifically allowed questions eoncerning the
0
~ relationstiip between I:mma Lou and 3ean upon counsel's assur-
t
~ ar~ces th<-~t hc c~oulcl ~ink such to the issue of undue in- '
~
~ fluence. However, caunsel never really pursued thaC line of
`s
~ ~lue:ct i.~>nin};. 41c~ f:~i_i lo tisicl c~rror ici thr cc~iirt's rt~li_n};~
; -
~
on Jari' s Cestimony.
'Ch~ ~ij~i~ell~?nts cc~mplain that T.is~ w~i : not ~er-
' i~~i ttccl tc, tc~stify r~~ to w1~eCher she believed her father had
su£ficient mental capacity to execute a will. Lisa
~ .
> .
~
~
~ -4-
s
€ • an~x Ju~ P~cE ~i~~
~ -