Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald

406 N.E.2d 1330, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 849, 1980 Mass. App. LEXIS 1263

CourtMassachusetts Appeals Court

DecidedJuly 23, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 406 N.E.2d 1330 (Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Appeals Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 406 N.E.2d 1330, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 849, 1980 Mass. App. LEXIS 1263 (Mass. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

There was no error in disallowing the probate of the decedent’s will offered by the proponent. The judge found that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity due to her diagnosed senility and chronic brain syndrome, that the proponent, the decedent’s son and attorney, exercised a strong domineering influence over her while simultaneously managing her financial and legal affairs, and that he brought the decedent to a bank where three employees witnessed the decedent’s execution of the will which the plaintiff had drafted. These findings are based upon substantial evidence and the judge’s assessment of credibility, and we will not disturb them. Nickerson v. Fiduciary Trust Co., 6 Mass. App. Ct. 317, 318 (1978). Marked v. Sidney B. Pfeifer Foundation, Inc., 9 Mass. App. Ct. 412, 416 (1980). They support the judge’s conclusion that the decedent was susceptible to the undue influence exercised over her by the proponent and that as a result of that influence, she executed the will in issue. Neill v. Brackett, 234 Mass. 367, 370 (1920). Tarricone v. Cummings, 340 Mass. 758, 761 (1960). Miles v. Capies, 362 Mass. 107, 112 (1972). Moreover, the correspondence between the proponent and the decedent was not erroneously excluded from evidence. These letters were of dubious relevancy, at best, see Poirier v. Plymouth, 374 Mass. 206, 209-210 (1978), and the proponent made no formal offer of the letters. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Third Universalist Soc., 285 Mass. 146, 149-150 (1934). Mazzaro v. Pauli, 372 Mass. 645, 648, 653 (1977).

Decree affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

There was no error in disallowing the probate of the decedent’s will offered by the proponent. The judge found that the decedent lacked testamentary capacity due to her diagnosed senility and chronic brain syndrome, that the proponent, the decedent’s son and attorney, exercised a strong domineering influence over her while simultaneously managing her financial and legal affairs, and that he brought the decedent to a bank where three employees witnessed the decedent’s execution of the will which the plaintiff had drafted. These findings are based upon substantial evidence and the judge’s assessment of credibility, and we will not disturb them. Nickerson v. Fiduciary Trust Co., 6 Mass. App. Ct. 317, 318 (1978). Marked v. Sidney B. Pfeifer Foundation, Inc., 9 Mass. App. Ct. 412, 416 (1980). They support the judge’s conclusion that the decedent was susceptible to the undue influence exercised over her by the proponent and that as a result of that influence, she executed the will in issue. Neill v. Brackett, 234 Mass. 367, 370 (1920). Tarricone v. Cummings, 340 Mass. 758, 761 (1960). Miles v. Capies, 362 Mass. 107, 112 (1972). Moreover, the correspondence between the proponent and the decedent was not erroneously excluded from evidence. These letters were of dubious relevancy, at best, see Poirier v. Plymouth, 374 Mass. 206, 209-210 (1978), and the proponent made no formal offer of the letters. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Third Universalist Soc., 285 Mass. 146, 149-150 (1934). Mazzaro v. Pauli, 372 Mass. 645, 648, 653 (1977).

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

406 N.E.2d 1330, 10 Mass. App. Ct. 849, 1980 Mass. App. LEXIS 1263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fitzgerald-v-fitzgerald-massappct-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack