Yurkovich v. Kessler
2020 Ohio 4169
Ohio Ct. App.2020Background
- Rita Justi executed a will on October 23, 2014 naming daughter Roberta Kessler (appellant) as sole beneficiary; prior estate plan left the estate equally to her three daughters.
- Rita suffered cognitive decline (Parkinson’s, dementia diagnosed Sept. 2014) and had falls in 2014; daughters Bonnie Yurkovich and Pamela Justi helped care for her before Roberta moved Rita into her home after a January 2014 fall.
- Roberta became Rita’s financial power of attorney (May 29, 2014), assisted with changing an annuity beneficiary to herself (Oct. 2014), and received significant transfers (farmhouse gift, checks, and annuity proceeds after Rita’s death).
- Appellant submitted the Oct. 23, 2014 will to probate; it was admitted in July 2017 and Roberta was appointed executrix. Appellees filed a will contest in Jan. 2018.
- A jury trial in Nov. 2019 found the Oct. 23, 2014 will invalid due to undue influence; the probate court entered judgment and Roberta appealed, arguing the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Testamentary capacity | Appellees: Rita lacked capacity due to dementia surrounding Oct. 23, 2014 | Appellant: Rita was coherent and understood her decisions when executing the will | Court: Evidence of dementia alone insufficient; appellees failed to prove incapacity by clear and convincing evidence |
| Undue influence | Appellees: Roberta, as live-in caregiver and POA who arranged beneficiary changes, had opportunity and exerted improper influence producing the dispositive change | Appellant: Roberta merely assisted Rita; no proof she coerced or controlled Rita’s testamentary intent | Court: Jury could reasonably find each element (susceptibility, opportunity, improper exertion, and result); verdict affirming undue influence supported by evidence |
| Burden / presumption of validity | Appellees: Met burden to rebut presumption of validity by showing undue influence and suspicious circumstances | Appellant: Presumption of validity remained because testamentary capacity not disproved | Held: Although capacity presumption not overcome, evidence of undue influence and circumstances sufficed for jury to invalidate the will |
| Manifest-weight review | Appellant: Jury verdict was a manifest miscarriage of justice and against weight of evidence | Appellees: Jury credibility determinations and inferences were supported by record | Held: Appellate court defers to the factfinder; verdict was not against the manifest weight of the evidence and was affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Eastley v. Volkman, 132 Ohio St.3d 328 (Ohio 2012) (standard for manifest-weight review)
- Niemes v. Niemes, 97 Ohio St. 145 (Ohio 1917) (four-part test for testamentary capacity)
- In re Estate of Flowers, 88 N.E.3d 599 (6th Dist. 2017) (dementia evidence must be tied to testamentary incapacity)
- West v. Henry, 173 Ohio St. 498 (Ohio 1962) (elements required to prove undue influence)
- Weis v. Weis, 147 Ohio St. 416 (Ohio 1947) (lay witness may testify about testator’s mental condition)
- Stewart v. Boland, 33 N.E.3d 551 (1st Dist. 2015) (dementia alone does not establish lack of testamentary capacity)