HomeMy WebLinkAbout0964 ~ ' / '
1
~
~ - ~
, . - ~ .
physic~il infir:.~i t y .~t~ne, especiall}• in a situation as
pre5entecl here, where ~here is no direct evideiice of inental
incap~~city. The c~urt correctty-directed a verdict on
menral capacity. Tate v. Tate's ~xecutor, I~:y., 275 S,td.2d ~
597 (1955).
'lhe appellants contend that the court erred in
directing the verdict on the issue of undue influence. To .
- constit~ite undue influence the evidence must demonstrate
that the free ~•~ill of the testator was destroyed and he was
forced to make a disposition which he would not have donP
I
; otherwise. Tee~;arden~v. Webster, 304 Ky. 18, 199 S.W.2d 728
i .
; (1947). The appellants attempted to demonsCrate undt~e in-
;
; fluence by showing that Jean turned Tommy against his mother
i
~ and that she controlled business decisions in the jewelry ~
~
~ business. The evidence revealed that: Jean and Emma dicl not
~ get a2on~; well. The evidence fur.ther showed that Jean did
e
~ ~nfluence Tomrry in the jewelry busi.ness. However, there is
~ -nothinf; c~f such subsrrince as could inc3vcc the conviction
s
~ that Jean had destroyed T~mmy's free will and compellecl him
~
§ to clo th~~t: which hc~ olhe~wise would not have clone. Since
~ apT~cltants f~~i7.~J r_a susC~iin their burclen of proaf, the _
~
~
Y ~rial cc~~ir~ propc•rly c3irc•cted tlle verdict. See Teegarden v.
~ ~.'ebster, ld._ .~ncl Jar.-;es v. En~,l~~nd, Ky. , 349 S.W.?d 359
s
r
~ (195I}.
!l~~ f i n,~l i y r~c~ctrc•c;s; t hr c~n:;tructi.on ~f the wi 11 of
E ~
~ "r,mm.i t,c>bi Rohinson. 'I'he ~nly disposir.i_vc~ pr~vision of the
u
H
~
~
~ '
•
a~oK~~ ~acE 96~
~ ~
~ -