In Re The Estate Of Saucier

908 So.2d 883 (2005)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Jerry was thirty-seven years of age at the time of his death on August 9, 2003. he died from congestive heart failure due to alcoholic cardiomyopathy. Jerry executed two documents which were later produced and submitted to probate. The first will was a holographic document dated January 27, 2002. The second will was a typewritten will dated January 27, 2003, leaving all of Jerry's property, both real and personal, to D. There is no dispute as to the authenticity of the two wills presented for probate. Under the holographic will, the balance of Jerry's estate would have passed to his son, from whom Jerry was estranged at the time of his death. P challenged the second will put forth by D on the grounds that the will was the product of D's undue influence over Jerry at the time it was executed. D provided care and assistance to Jerry as his health declined by cleaning his house and by taking him to detoxification programs and psychiatric appointments. D and Jerry also dated at least one year prior to his death. The pair saw each other every day of the year prior to his death, they were physically intimate, and at some point had made plans to marry. D was heavily involved in preparing his will. D located and provided the form used for the second will, and accompanied Jerry to the bank where the instrument was executed. Upon learning that the will had not been properly executed, D brought Jerry to the bank a second time in order to affect a valid execution. The trial court found that D 'played an instrumental part in seeing that the will was created . . . .' Jerry admitted to his father that he consumed approximately one-fifth of whisky a day. There was no testimony that Jerry was intoxicated at the time of the preparation and execution of his will. Witnesses from the bank where the instrument was executed thought Jerry was competent at the time of the execution. D was present but did not appear to be an active or interfering force in the execution. The court found for D and allowed the document to be entered into probate. P appealed.