In re the Estate of Reed

Supreme Court of Delaware

In re the Estate of Reed

300 A.2d 1, 1972 Del. LEXIS 235

CourtSupreme Court of Delaware

DecidedDecember 21, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 300 A.2d 1 (In re the Estate of Reed) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Delaware primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Estate of Reed, 300 A.2d 1, 1972 Del. LEXIS 235 (Del. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In 1963, testatrix executed a will in which she left $5.00 to her sister, the appellant, and the bulk of the estate to a charity. The testatrix died in 1970 and her sister now attacks the will on the grounds that the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity at the time of execution of the will seven years before her death.

The appellant opposed probate of the will before the Register of Wills. After a hearing, the Register ordered probate. Appellant appealed to the Court of Chancery, which affirmed the Register’s decision.

Two arguments for reversal of the Chancellor are advanced. Both are without merit.

First, appellant argues that the Court of Chancery’s decision should be reversed since testatrix lacked the necessary testamentary capacity. We find, however, that the Chancellor’s decision was amply [2]*2supported by the record. Several friends and business acquaintances of testatrix, her minister, an attorney, and a physician testified at the Register’s hearing as to the mental competence of testatrix at the time she executed her will. On the other hand, appellant presented only her own testimony, that of her husband, and that of a doctor who examined testatrix twice, more than a year after she executed the will. Accordingly, the question became one of weighing the evidence, and the record clearly demonstrates that appellant failed to meet her burden of proving the lack of testamentary capacity. In re Barne’s Will, Del.Super., 2 Terry 206, 18 A.2d 433 (1941).

The second argument appellant propounds is that the Court of Chancery abused its discretion in refusing to hear additional evidence when it reviewed the Register’s decision. Appellant did not request the Court below to open the record when the case was before it. Absent such a request, there was no abuse of discretion for failing to open the record.

The judgment below is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

In 1963, testatrix executed a will in which she left $5.00 to her sister, the appellant, and the bulk of the estate to a charity. The testatrix died in 1970 and her sister now attacks the will on the grounds that the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity at the time of execution of the will seven years before her death.

The appellant opposed probate of the will before the Register of Wills. After a hearing, the Register ordered probate. Appellant appealed to the Court of Chancery, which affirmed the Register’s decision.

Two arguments for reversal of the Chancellor are advanced. Both are without merit.

First, appellant argues that the Court of Chancery’s decision should be reversed since testatrix lacked the necessary testamentary capacity. We find, however, that the Chancellor’s decision was amply [2]*2supported by the record. Several friends and business acquaintances of testatrix, her minister, an attorney, and a physician testified at the Register’s hearing as to the mental competence of testatrix at the time she executed her will. On the other hand, appellant presented only her own testimony, that of her husband, and that of a doctor who examined testatrix twice, more than a year after she executed the will. Accordingly, the question became one of weighing the evidence, and the record clearly demonstrates that appellant failed to meet her burden of proving the lack of testamentary capacity. In re Barne’s Will, Del.Super., 2 Terry 206, 18 A.2d 433 (1941).

The second argument appellant propounds is that the Court of Chancery abused its discretion in refusing to hear additional evidence when it reviewed the Register’s decision. Appellant did not request the Court below to open the record when the case was before it. Absent such a request, there was no abuse of discretion for failing to open the record.

The judgment below is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.2d 1, 1972 Del. LEXIS 235, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-reed-del-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack