Johnson v. Johnson
2017 Ohio 4153
Ohio Ct. App.2017Background
- Decedent Fred Johnson executed a will on June 3, 2010 leaving his real property and the estate residue to his second wife, Robin Johnson; the will was prepared by Attorney Don Caplea.
- Decedent died July 6, 2015; the probate court admitted the 2010 will on September 17, 2015.
- Appellants (five adult children and three grandchildren) filed a will contest alleging Robin exerted undue influence to disinherit them; Robin moved for summary judgment.
- Appellants offered testimony and affidavits (family complaints, alleged secret property purchases, an affidavit from a former attorney who had prepared an earlier will, and a 1974 will favoring the children) to show influence and susceptibility.
- Robin and Attorney Caplea provided affidavits that Decedent was competent, acted of his own volition, and intended to provide for his wife; the trial court granted summary judgment for Robin, finding no genuine issue of material fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether undue influence invalidated 2010 will | Appellants: Decedent was susceptible (advanced age, alleged poor health) and Robin had opportunity and exerted improper influence (control of decisions, secret property transfers, family testimony) | Robin: Decedent was competent, made independent decisions, sought to provide for wife; evidence fails to show influence that destroyed his free agency | Court: Summary judgment for Robin — Appellants failed to show a genuine issue that undue influence overpowered Decedent at execution |
Key Cases Cited
- Krischbaum v. Dillon, 58 Ohio St.3d 58 (1991) (probate will is presumed free from restraint; contesting party bears burden to prove undue influence)
- West v. Henry, 173 Ohio St. 498 (1962) (defines undue influence standard and four-part proof: susceptible testator, opportunity, exertion of improper influence, and result)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (1997) (summary judgment burden-shifting and nonmoving party must set forth specific facts showing genuine issue)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (1996) (moving party must identify record portions showing absence of genuine issue; nonmoving must produce specific opposing facts)
- Smiddy v. Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (1987) (appellate review of summary judgment uses the same standard and evidence as trial court)
- Russell v. Interim Personnel, Inc., 135 Ohio App.3d 301 (1999) (material facts affect outcome under substantive law)