2020 Ohio 6856
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background:
- Decedent executed a 1991 will naming Hatter personal representative and residuary beneficiary; that will was admitted earlier.
- A granddaughter later presented a 2002 will naming herself personal representative and residuary beneficiary, expressly disinheriting Hatter and others and containing a no-contest clause.
- Hearing testimony came from the attorney who drafted the 2002 will and his former secretary; both testified they witnessed the decedent sign the will in the attorney’s office.
- A magistrate admitted the 2002 will; the probate court overruled Hatter’s objections, but this Court remanded because the trial court applied the wrong burden (placing it on the contestant rather than the proponent).
- On remand the probate court found the granddaughter (proponent) had produced substantial evidence that the 2002 will was attested and executed according to law and again admitted the will; Hatter appealed.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proponent produced substantial evidence that the decedent actually executed the 2002 will | Hatter: attorney and secretary were not personally familiar and did not verify identity, so an imposter could have executed the will | Granddaughter: attorney and secretary testified they drafted, observed, and witnessed the decedent sign the will in their presence | Court: Substantial evidence existed—testimony that attorney (drafter) and secretary witnessed signing was sufficient; admission affirmed |
| Whether proponent produced substantial evidence that decedent met statutory capacity/age/was not under restraint when executing the will | Hatter: no substantial evidence decedent was ≥18, of sound mind, and not under restraint | Granddaughter: witnesses testified about the signing and the attorney confirmed decedent would have been over 18 and personally witnessed the signing | Court: Capacity and age issues go to validity; for admission the court need only find substantial evidence the will was attested and executed according to law—that showing was met |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estate of Lyons, 166 Ohio St. 207 (1957) (application to admit a will is not adversarial; court must determine whether substantial evidence shows lawful attestation/execution)
- Haynes v. Haynes, 33 Ohio St. 598 (1878) (validity/execution of a will reviewed de novo)
- In re Young, 60 Ohio App.2d 390 (1978) (application to admit a will is not the proceeding for full contest; contest occurs after probate)
- In re McGraw's Will, 14 Ohio App.2d 87 (1967) (attorney-drafted will executed in attorney's presence creates a strong presumption of regularity)
- Estate of Snell v. Kilburn, 165 Ohio App.3d 352 (2005) (court reaffirming presumption when attorney is present at execution)
- In re Frey's Estate, 139 Ohio St. 354 (1942) (rule on finality/appealability of orders admitting wills)