HomeMy WebLinkAbout0963 r
t
~
~
4
• . t ' \
I~i rc•sc~lvinF; t t:e cii ~-c~cte~j verdict i ssuc, we ~•rill
also reaci~ aticl discuss fi; st tile question of wh~ther- Tommy's .
will was an unnatural distribution of his estate. ,Tommy and~
Jean h~~d dated since 1966 and lived together from 1976,
through their marriage in AugusC of 1978, until Tommy's _
death in June of 197y. To?nmy left his entire estate to
Jean. Tt~e appellants maintain that the omission of his tk=o
daughters from his will amo.unted to an unnatural disposition.
Ilowever, they have cited no authority to demonstrate that
the entire disposition of an estate to-a spouse is an un-
natural one. Indeed, the law of the Commonwealth is to the
~ contrary. See Massbarger v. Mossbarger's Adm'x, 230 Ky. 230,
;
4
! 18 S. ca. 2d 997 t19?_9) .
i
~
~ ~Concerning the issue of inental capacity, our
~
_ review of the record reveals no evidence upon which the
i
t
~ question cauld have bcen submitLed Co the jury. There is no
1
~ c~c~tzbt th~it Torra~y's physical condition was deteriorating.
However, the~e is no evidence Chat he did not know Che
~ obj~cLs oC his affection or ~he ext.ent of his property.
~ l•ihilcy Lisz testiEircl thrit in ttarch of 1979, Tommy would doze
~ ofE or repeat }timself, shr also testi.fied th~~t he knew her
~
~ .
< anci tre~-~tect hc~r i_n r? n~,riiir3l. Par~~nt-chilcl rnanncr.
~
~ ApE~~l lnnt~; h:~ve clit-ecic~~l u~ .tc> the f~~cc of 1'~mmy's
~
~ ~~;c~r,c~niny~, ~~h:~sical cunciiti.~i~, st.itin~; that th~ cy.tent of
1:.~•T.t:~s iT~ca}~-irity :~t~~~~slcl i.:rvc~ bc~c~n lc~ft f~r thc ju~'y. We do
~ n~t beli_cvc~ thar me~jtal incapaciry rnay be inferred from f
~
~ -
L_ .
f-
~5
F ~ , ~
~
~y
(
~ • ,
3t1~'~t e~.~~ P~GE
~
~
~