Was Verdict Overturned As There Was Sufficient Evidence That Testator Was Unduly Influenced When Executing Will ?
In Rich v. Quinn (1983), 13 Ohio App. 3d 102, 13 Ohio B. 119, 468 N.E.2d 365, the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence that the testator was, in fact, unduly influenced when executing a will.
In that case, heirs challenged a will, claiming that one brother unduly influenced another to name him the sole heir.
They introduced evidence showing that the beneficiary moved in with the formerly social testator and, over time, isolated the testator from friends and family and did not allow the testator to visit with others without being present.
The testator at one point complained that he was a "prisoner" in his own home.
The testator changed his will to name his brother the sole beneficiary the same day that the brother discovered a prior will which left him only half the estate.
After the will was changed, the beneficiary told a disinherited heir, "You might as well forget what Sammy wanted to do for you because I fixed it.
You're not going to get anything." Id. at 103-104.
On appeal, the Twelfth District concluded that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for the defendants because there was a jury question regarding whether the testator was unduly influenced.