Virginia L. Jones Individually v. Teresa Chambers
2019 CA 000674
| Ky. Ct. App. | May 12, 2022Background
- Virginia and Harold Jones (each on second marriage) purchased Office Depot will forms in Tennessee in June 2005, completed them to leave everything to each other, and signed them there; additional witness signatures were later obtained in Kentucky and Florida.
- Harold’s sister Patricia Roy and son Timothy signed (at the Pine Knot NAPA store) later in 2005; daughter Linda signed in Daytona, Florida, in February 2006.
- Harold died June 2012; the 2005 will was admitted to probate and Virginia was appointed executrix.
- In April 2014 Harold’s four children sued to set aside probate under KRS 394.040 (formal execution requirements), arguing the statutory attestation requirements were not met.
- At trial (Nov. 2018) testimony showed Harold did not sign the will in the witnesses’ presence and witnesses said they were not told they were signing his will; the jury found for the children and the circuit court denied Virginia’s post-trial motions.
- Virginia appealed multiple rulings (directed verdict/JNOV denial, evidentiary limits on motive/bias, CR 59 instruction/new-trial claims, CR 60 newly discovered evidence); the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of will / substantial compliance with KRS 394.040 (directed verdict & JNOV) | Children: statutory formalities not met; will invalid. | Virginia: substantial compliance exists; question of law; trial court should have granted directed verdict/JNOV. | Affirmed: jury verdict sustained; substantial compliance not shown; directed verdict/JNOV denial proper. |
| Admission of evidence on motive/bias and testamentary intent | Children: limit proof to statutory compliance; motive/bias irrelevant or narrow. | Virginia: may show children’s motive to contest and evidence of Harold’s intent. | No abuse: trial court permitted some motive questioning; limits were proper under case scope. |
| Jury instructions / CR 59 new-trial motion | Virginia: erroneous instructions warranted new trial. | Children: instructions matched parties’ submissions. | Waived/denied: record showed instructions were identical to Virginia’s proposed instructions; issue waived. |
| CR 60.02 motion for new trial (newly discovered evidence) | Virginia: newly discovered pages/evidence required new trial or relief. | Children: evidence was known to Virginia/trial counsel earlier; not newly discovered. | Denied: Virginia failed to show a significant trial defect or truly newly discovered evidence; CR 60 relief properly denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Getty v. Getty, 581 S.W.3d 548 (Ky. 2019) (explains highly deferential standard reviewing jury verdicts and directed-verdict/JNOV motions)
- Exantus v. Commonwealth, 612 S.W.3d 871 (Ky. 2020) (cited on appellate review principles)
- Smith v. Smith, 348 S.W.3d 63 (Ky. App. 2011) (describes requirement that witnesses subscribe in testator's presence or the testator acknowledge the will)
- Lewis v. Bledsoe Surface Mining Co., 798 S.W.2d 459 (Ky. 1990) (standards for appellate review of jury verdict sufficiency)
- Wine v. Commonwealth, 699 S.W.2d 752 (Ky. App. 1985) (standards for CR 60.02 relief—must show substantial miscarriage of justice)
- Richardson v. Head, 236 S.W.3d 17 (Ky. App. 2007) (CR 60 relief principles and standards)
- Thompson v. Hardy, 43 S.W.3d 281 (Ky. App. 2000) (discusses self-authentication and notarial issues for wills)