University:
University College London
Course:
LAWS0007 | Criminal Law
Academic year:

2020
Views:

168

Pages:

1
Author:

do3ran7ut

Lipper v. Weslow (1963) Parties: o Plaintiffs, are the 3 grandchildren of Mrs. Block by a deceased son o Defendants are Mrs Blocks 2 surviving children Procedural: o The trial was to a jury, which found that Mrs. Block will was procured by undue influence on the part of the proponent, Frank Lipper o The trial court entered judgment on the verdict, setting aside the will o Defendants appeal, contending there is no evidence or insufficient evidence, to support the finding that the will was procured by undue influence Issue: o Whether there is any evidence of undue influence Facts: o Testatrix’s will left her estate to her two surviving children and disinherited the issue of her predeceased son o The issue of the predeceased son sued claiming undue influence on the part of the surviving son, Frank o He lived next door to the testatrix, he was the attorney who drafted the will, he bore malice toward his predeceased half-brother, and had a key to the house. o Testatrix was 81 years old when she signed the will, she did not read the will or discuss its terms when she signed it. She died only 22 days later. The will contained a paragraph that stated that the testatrix disinherited the grandchildren because they and their mother had been “most unfriendly” to her since the death of her son, though there was no conflicting evidence as to the accuracy of this assertion o Although there was evidence that showed the testatrix was susceptible (due to her age and dependency upon her son) that the son had the opportunity (he lived next door, he was an attorney, he drafted the will, he had a key to the house) and motive (he disliked his deceased half brother and he took more under the will), the court ruled there were no causation. o The court noted that for years the testatrix had told a number of different people when the send was not present, that she intended to disinherit her grandchildren because of their behavior Courts conclusion: o We conclude there is no evidence of probative force to support the verdict of the jury o The cause is reversed & rendered for defendant