Wilson v. Lindvall
428 S.W.3d 532
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- Decedent Alvin H. Tittle’s will contest pits his natural grandson Michael S. Tittle and his mother Vicki Tittle Wilson against Martha Lindvall (stepdaughter) and the Estate of Alvin H. Tittle.
- The decedent married Beatrice Chadwick in 1994; Beatrice had two daughters from a prior marriage who became Martha and Betty (stepdaughters).
- In 2004 Alvin updated his will to include Martha and Betty as co-beneficiaries with Michael and Vicki; Martha was named executrix and Beatrice was to receive a life estate that later terminated when Beatrice predeceased Alvin.
- Alvin died in 2011; the probate court admitted the 2004 will; Vicki and Michael challenged the will alleging lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence by Martha.
- A bench trial found no lack of capacity and no undue influence; the court held Martha was not the controlling influence and that the will was properly executed.
- Appellants appeal asserting misallocation of burden and procurement-based presumptions; the appellate court affirms the trial court’s ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there clear error in finding no undue influence? | Tittle (plaintiff) argues undue influence by Martha. | Lindvall/estate contends evidence shows Alvin was competent and not coerced. | No clear error; trial court’s finding upheld. |
| Did procurement by Martha shift the burden of proof to Martha? | Appellants claim procurement created a rebuttable presumption shifting burden. | Court should apply established burden rules; preservation issues absent. | Issue not preserved for review; no burden shift addressed. |
| Did testimony about Martha’s involvement require a higher burden of proof beyond preponderance? | Argue that Martha’s procurement warrants heightened scrutiny. | Record supports capacity and independent decision; no undue influence proved. | Not satisfied; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pyle v. Sayers, 344 Ark. 354 (2001) (preponderance standard for testamentary capacity and undue influence)
- Ashley v. Ashley, 405 S.W.3d 419 (Ark. App. 2012) (de novo review with deferential fact-finding to trial court)
- Morton v. Patterson, 54 S.W.3d 137 (2001) (clearly erroneous standard in probate findings)
- Scudder v. Ramsey, 426 S.W.3d 427 (2013) (preservation of error; appellate review limits)
- Arkansas Wildlife Fed’n v. Ark. Soil & Water Conservation Comm’n, 233 S.W.3d 615 (2006) (preservation and review of issues not ruled on below)
- Foster v. Hatfield, 2013 WL 831126 (Ark. App. 2013) (credibility and de novo review considerations)