McDaniel v. McDaniel
288 Ga. 711
| Ga. | 2011Background
- Mary Agnes Royster McDaniel died Dec 10, 2006; Luther Lee McDaniel died Jun 24, 2009; propounder (son) filed for solemn-form probate of 2007 will; caveator (son) challenged as to capacity, undue influence, and fraud; jury found undue influence and fraud, probate court denied admission; propounder appeals on undue influence/fraud and evidentiary rulings; cross-appeal by caveator is moot after affirmance of denial of admission.
- The 2007 will deviated dramatically from the 2002 will, leaving 89% to the propounder with nothing to caveator; testator had signs of dementia and was elderly; caveator moved in to assist and later was accused of stealing funds from joint accounts.
- Post-wife death, propounder and wife encouraged vacation for caveator and wife; during absence, testator was misled into believing caveator stole money; testator removed caveator from joint accounts and executed new will in favor of propounder.
- The propounder obtained a durable power of attorney and moved testator’s property into joint ownership with himself; testator restricted caveator’s access and care; after death, petition to probate 2007 will filed and caveator replied with caveat.
- Probate court denied directed verdict on undue influence; jury found undue influence and fraud; trial evidence included isolation, misrepresentations, and participation in will drafting; court affirmed denial of admission to probate.
- Appeal and cross-appeal addressed, but appellate court affirmed probate court’s denial of the 2007 will; cross-appeal deemed moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the 2007 will procured by undue influence? | McDaniel contends sufficient evidence supported undue influence. | McDaniel asserts the evidence failed to show undue influence. | Yes; evidence supported undue influence. |
| Was the 2007 will procured by fraud? | McDaniel argues misrepresentations coerced the testator. | McDaniel contends no fraud established. | Yes; evidence supported fraud. |
| Did the probate court abuse its discretion on evidentiary rulings? | McDaniel claims improper exclusion/admission affected trial. | McDaniel contends rulings were proper, otherwise prejudicial. | No; rulings were not an abuse of discretion. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. Edmundson, 280 Ga. 528 (Ga. 2006) (undue-influence standard; circumstantial evidence admissible)
- Lillard v. Owens, 281 Ga. 619 (Ga. 2007) (testator’s surroundings and conduct relevant to capacity)
- Bowman v. Bowman, 205 Ga. 796 (Ga. 1949) (undue influence through caregiver relations and care dynamics)
- Edwards v. Shumate, 266 Ga. 374 (Ga. 1996) (fraud in will execution requires misrepresentations relied on by testator)
- Cook v. Huff, 274 Ga. 186 (Ga. 2001) (consideration of circumstances and capacity in will execution)