Young v. Bellamy
2017 Ohio 2994
| Ohio Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Decedent (Jesse Young) executed a will on February 20, 2014; it was probated and named Veronica Bellamy (his daughter‑in‑law in his parlance) as an executor and a residuary beneficiary.
- Appellant Kymberli Young (granddaughter) filed suit contesting the will’s validity claiming undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity.
- Evidence for appellees included affidavits from the drafting attorney (Crowley) and the notary/witness (Sylvia Cover) who observed Decedent on the execution date and attested he understood and approved the will.
- Appellant offered an affidavit describing Decedent’s variable intellect, past statements that he didn’t remember a prior will, and alleged Bellamy’s improper influence; she also submitted records of Bellamy’s prior felony convictions.
- The probate court granted summary judgment for appellees finding no genuine issue of material fact as to undue influence or testamentary capacity; appellant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Undue influence: Did Bellamy overpower Decedent such that the will reflected another’s will? | Young: Totality of circumstances (Decedent’s variable intellect, allegations Bellamy accused Young of stealing, Bellamy’s criminal history) creates jury question. | Bellamy: Witnesses present at signing observed Decedent was of sound mind, not under duress; no evidence connecting past crimes to influence at execution. | Court held no genuine issue; evidence showed testament made free of restraint and plaintiff failed to rebut witnesses. |
| Testamentary capacity: Did Decedent have requisite mental capacity when executing the 2014 will? | Young: Decedent’s intellectual ability varied and prior statements about not recalling earlier wills suggest incapacity. | Bellamy: Attorney and witness present testified Decedent understood nature of the document, reviewed draft, and confirmed it reflected his wishes. | Court held no genuine issue; plaintiff offered no admissible evidence of incapacity at execution time. |
| Evidentiary weight of familial labels / prior wills | Young: Decedent’s calling Bellamy his "daughter‑in‑law" and changes in wills suggest manipulation. | Bellamy: The label was longstanding, affectionate, and not evidence of manipulation; Decedent had previously removed and reinstated beneficiaries in earlier wills showing independent choice. | Court found the label and past wills inconclusive and not probative of undue influence. |
| Sufficiency of affidavit/testimony to create controverted facts on summary judgment | Young: Her affidavit and documentary points create material factual disputes. | Bellamy: Appellant was not present at execution and her statements are self‑serving; appellees pointed to contemporaneous firsthand affidavits. | Court held appellant’s affidavit insufficient to overcome appellees’ direct evidence; summary judgment proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Krischbaum v. Dillon, 58 Ohio St.3d 58 (Ohio 1991) (will admitted to probate is presumed free from restraint; contestants bear burden to prove undue influence)
- West v. Henry, 173 Ohio St. 498 (Ohio 1962) (defines undue influence standard and elements required to invalidate a will)
- Vahila v. Hall, 77 Ohio St.3d 421 (Ohio 1997) (summary judgment burdens and nonmoving party obligations)
- Dresher v. Burt, 75 Ohio St.3d 280 (Ohio 1996) (framework for a party opposing summary judgment)
- Kennedy v. Walcutt, 118 Ohio St. 442 (Ohio 1928) (burden on contestant to prove lack of testamentary capacity)
- Doyle v. Schott, 65 Ohio App.3d 92 (Ohio Ct. App.) (statutory presumption of will validity includes presumption of testamentary capacity)
- Niemes v. Niemes, 97 Ohio St. 145 (Ohio 1917) (elements of testamentary capacity)
- Oehlke v. Marks, 2 Ohio App.2d 264 (Ohio Ct. App.) (mental condition near time of execution is controlling)
- Smiddy v. Wedding Party, Inc., 30 Ohio St.3d 35 (Ohio 1987) (appellate standard reviewing summary judgment)