1. What was the relationship of the testator to Taylor? What were his family relationships like?

2. What factors are considered when determining whether there was undue influence?

3. What does the court see as the evidence that overcomes the findings of some of the factors of undue influence?

John C. Ramsey Sr. (Senior) executed a will in the last months of his life that left the bulk of his estate to Melody Taylor, his paramour. Senior’s relationships with his son and grandsons were strained, and his will included the following clause:

I have intentionally provided significant, yet smaller amounts for my son and grandsons because they have for several years alienated my affections by being irresponsible, contentious, and constantly seeking financial support from me rather than providing for themselves.

I have made provisions for MELODY J. TAYLOR because MELODY J. TAYLOR provides me care and support.

Senior was suffering from cancer and renal failure, and his pain was extraordinary. His doctors prescribed high doses of morphine that Melody administered. Senior died from an overdose of morphine.

John Ramsey Jr. (Junior), Senior’s son, challenged the validity of the will on the grounds of undue influence as well as felonious killing of a testator by a beneficiary. The trial court found there was undue influence and refused to admit the will to probate. Melody appealed.

JUDICIAL OPINION

MUNZ, Presiding Judge … The issue is whether Taylor exercised undue influence over Senior in the payment of her mortgage, the assignment of a right of survivorship in his checking account, and the disposition of his estate under his final will and trust.

We agree with the trial court that a confidential relationship existed between Senior and Taylor. Evidence in the record establishes not only that Taylor and Senior spent most of their time together in the last few months of his life but also establishes that Taylor took increasing responsibility over that time in managing all aspects of Senior’s dayto- day life, including procuring and administering his medications, arranging and driving him to medical and business appointments, caring for his house and clothes, providing his food, and managing his checkbook.

The evidence also amply demonstrates that Senior made numerous financial decisions in the final months of his life that provided monetary benefits to Taylor. Moreover, evidence that Senior was strong-minded does not directly bear on the question of whether he had a confidential relationship with Taylor; that evidence is more properly considered in conjunction with the “susceptibility to influence” factor discussed below. Given the circumstances, we conclude that a confidential relationship existed between Senior and Taylor. It is undisputed that the documents that Senior actually signed on August 10 did not reflect the same changes in the disposition of his estate as did the changes that Taylor assisted in preparing. However, it also is undisputed that the documents actually executed on August 10 did, in fact, give a greater amount of Senior’s estate to Taylor than did the revision that Taylor helped to prepare.

This factor concerns whether Senior “had the benefit of the independent advice of his own attorney in drawing up the new will” that benefitted Taylor. Also relevant to this factor is whether the beneficiary was present during the meeting with the attorneys. That a beneficiary made the appointment and escorted a testator to an attorney’s office do not, in themselves, support an inference of undue influence. Evidence in the record establishes that Senior met with his attorneys on two occasions to prepare his final will and trust and that Taylor was not present at those meetings.

Although we have found it to be a suspicious circumstance where a testator is taken to a beneficiary’s attorney rather than his or her own attorney to prepare a will, it is undisputed that Senior consulted his own attorneys, who had previously prepared a will and trust for him. Moreover, one of the attorneys testified that Senior told him that Taylor had been of no help to him in deciding how to dispose of his estate. Also, the attorneys discussed with Senior his intent to benefit Taylor and the reasons why he was benefitting Taylor to a greater extent than he was benefitting his family. We conclude that no “suspicious circumstance” was present regarding whether Senior received independent advice concerning his last will and trust. ……………….