Citation Numbers: 271 A.2d 42
Judges: Duffy, Herr-Mann, Herrmann, Wolcott
Filed Date: 10/7/1970
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 8/28/2023
Supreme Court of Delaware.
Kenneth W. Lewis, James F. Kruzinski, and Joseph A. Julian, Jr., Wilmington, for appellant.
Joseph H. Flanzer, of Flanzer & Isaacs, Wilmington, for appellee.
WOLCOTT, Chief Justice, HERRMANN, Justice, and DUFFY, Chancellor, sitting.
*43 HERRMANN, Justice.
This is an appeal from the judgment of the Orphans' Court affirming the conclusion of the Register of Wills that the testator, Frank A. Levering, did not possess the requisite testamentary capacity when he executed the purported Will contested in this action. The Register had denied probate.
The opinion of the Orphans' Court appears at 269 A.2d 260.
We have reviewed the record in this cause and the facts and the law involved. We agree with the inferences and deductions of the Orphans' Court, and its ultimate finding of lack of testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the Will, all of which we find supported by sufficient evidence and the law. See In re Collins, Del.Supr., 251 A.2d 345 (1969).
The contention of the appellant that the Orphans' Court erred, in refusing to hear anew the testimony of the two subscribing witnesses, has been duly considered. We hold that there was no abuse of discretion in the Court's refusal to rehear testimony previously heard by the Register of Wills and fully reported in the transcript of the record. See In re Collins, Del.Supr., 251 A.2d 345 (1969).
The contestant of the Will, appellee herein, alleged undue influence as well as lack of testamentary capacity in attacking the document. These were alternate grounds; the denial of probate on either ground rendered academic the other ground; and the Orphans' Court correctly stated that it need go no further after finding lack of testamentary capacity.
The proponent argues in this connection that the contention of undue influence rests upon a presumption of testamentary capacity; that, therefore, the assertion of undue influence requires abandonment of lack of testamentary capacity as a ground of contest, citing Conner v. Brown, Del.Super., 9 W.W.Harr. 529, 3 A. 2d 64 (1938). There is no merit in this argument; the cited case, which referred to a situation in which undue influence was the sole ground of the contest, does not so hold. As stated above, the contention of undue influence may be asserted properly as alternate to the contention of lack of testamentary capacity.
Affirmed.
Longo v. Longo, No. 26 55 24 (Oct. 11, 1990) , 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 2746 ( 1990 )
Morris v. Morris, No. Fa94 031 20 82 S (Aug. 24, 1995) , 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 9367 ( 1995 )
Weiss v. Weiss, No. 30 01 99 (Dec. 9, 1991) , 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 10122 ( 1991 )
Munson v. Munson, No. Fa95 032 51 74 S (Sep. 8, 1997) , 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 9179 ( 1997 )
Telesco v. Telesco, No. Fa94 031 56 10 S (Oct. 22, 1996) , 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 7631 ( 1996 )
Sergeant v. Sergeant, No. Fa 93-0312462s (Nov. 19, 1996) , 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 9648 ( 1996 )
Schmeiser v. Schmeiser, No. Fa94 031 29 09 S (May 24, 1995) , 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 5665 ( 1995 )
Scavo v. Scavo, No. Fa93 03097385 S (May 12, 1994) , 1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 5100 ( 1994 )
Thomson v. Thomson, No. Fa93 031 12 20 S (Oct. 10, 1995) , 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 11285 ( 1995 )
Pogmore v. Pogmore, No. 29 46 07 (Dec. 18, 1991) , 1991 Conn. Super. Ct. 10502 ( 1991 )
Gregor v. Kamerling, No. Fa 89-0257042-S (Aug. 5, 1992) , 7 Conn. Super. Ct. 1018 ( 1992 )
Taylor v. Taylor, No. Fa89 0265637 S (Jul. 23, 1990) , 1990 Conn. Super. Ct. 588 ( 1990 )
Graziano v. Graziano, No. Fa91 028 86 47s (Oct. 15, 1993) , 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 8474 ( 1993 )
Davies v. Davies, No. Fa94 031 46 31 S (Nov. 14, 1997) , 1997 Conn. Super. Ct. 11959 ( 1997 )
Rifkin v. Rifkin, No. Fa97 033 96 42 S (Jun. 17, 1998) , 1998 Conn. Super. Ct. 7656 ( 1998 )
Didonno v. Didonno, No. 30 28 61 (Jul. 27, 1992) , 1992 Conn. Super. Ct. 7079 ( 1992 )
Hychko v. Hychko, No. Fa95 032 04 66 S (Nov. 7, 1995) , 1995 Conn. Super. Ct. 12812 ( 1995 )
Southwick v. Southwick, No. Fa92 0299343 S (Aug. 19, 1993) , 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 7566 ( 1993 )
Pry v. Pry, No. Fa92 029 55 64 S (Aug. 18, 1993) , 1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 7559 ( 1993 )
Allen v. Allen, No. Fa95 032 85 10 S (Nov. 12, 1996) , 1996 Conn. Super. Ct. 9104 ( 1996 )