Black v. Watson
2016 Ohio 1470
Ohio Ct. App.2016Background
- Decedent (Daniel Watson) executed a will (signed March 25, 2003) leaving his estate to his wife, Bonita Watson, with remainder to his child Sherry Black and stepson Chester Pitkiewicz; a 1997 will (revoked) had left Black 25% and Watson 75%.
- The last page of the 2003 will mistakenly showed the year 1997; the original will was lost and a copy was probated by Bonita in 2013.
- Black, decedent’s only child, had a limited relationship with him and no relationship with Bonita; she filed a will-contest alleging (1) noncompliance with R.C. 2107.03 (witness/attestation issues) and (2) undue influence by Bonita.
- Bonita moved for summary judgment, supported by affidavits from herself, attorney David Riehl (drafter/witness), and legal assistant Kelly Antel (witness) stating the will was prepared and signed on March 25, 2003 and the 1997 date was a typographical error.
- Black opposed with documentary evidence and affidavits arguing diminished capacity, post-2003 isolation and mismanagement of decedent, and alleged notary/commission issues; she produced no direct evidence of decedent’s incapacity at execution.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Bonita; the appellate court affirmed, finding no genuine issue on undue influence or statutory execution requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Undue influence | Black: Bonita isolated decedent, mismanaged assets, and exploited a susceptible testator to obtain a new will disinheriting Black | Bonita: Decedent initiated will changes, handled finances, executed will knowingly; witnesses attest to proper execution; no direct proof of undue influence | No genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment for Bonita — Black failed to present clear and convincing evidence of undue influence |
| Compliance with R.C. 2107.03 (attestation/subscription) | Black: Alleged defects (date error, alleged false notary/commission issues) cast doubt on validity | Bonita: Affidavits show 2003 execution, date on last page was typographical error, two competent witnesses observed signing; notarization not required for wills | Will met statutory requirements; affidavits established valid execution and two witnesses; summary judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- West v. Henry, 173 Ohio St. 498 (establishes four-part test for undue influence)
- Temple v. Wean United, Inc., 50 Ohio St.2d 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (party moving for summary judgment bears initial burden; nonmoving must produce evidence on issues it must prove)
- Ament v. Reassure Am. Life Ins. Co., 180 Ohio App.3d 440 (undue influence requires clear and convincing proof)
- In re Estate of Wachsmann, 55 Ohio App.3d 265 (distinguishes attestation and subscription under will-execution statute)