Laura Nelson v. Karen Lee Nelson, Personally and as of the Estate of Jerold Charles Nelson

• Court: Court of Appeals of Kentucky
• Decided: May 15, 2026
• Docket: 2024-CA-0622
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

RENDERED: MAY 15, 2026; 10:00 A.M. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky Court of Appeals NO. 2024-CA-0622-MR

LAURA NELSON; JOHN NELSON; AND LILLIAN LISA MICHELLE NELSON HILES APPELLANTS

APPEAL FROM PENDLETON CIRCUIT COURT v. HONORABLE JAY DELANEY, JUDGE ACTION NO. 22-CI-00023

KAREN LEE NELSON, PERSONALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF JEROLD CHARLES NELSON APPELLEE

OPINION AFFIRMING

** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: COMBS, L. JONES, AND TAYLOR, JUDGES.

JONES, L., JUDGE: Laura Nelson (Laura), John Nelson (John), and Lillian Lisa

Michelle Nelson Hiles (Lisa) bring this appeal from a March 5, 2024 Order of the Pendleton Circuit Court granting summary judgment in favor of Karen Lee Nelson,

Personally and as Executrix of the Estate of Jerold Charles Nelson. We affirm.

Jerold Charles Nelson (Jerold) died testate on October 22, 2021, at the

age of seventy-nine. At the time of Jerold’s death, he was married to Karen Lee

Nelson. In addition to his wife, Jerold was survived by his three adult children

from a previous marriage: Laura, John, and Lisa. On November 2, 2021, a petition

to probate Jerold’s will was filed in Pendleton District Court, Probate Division,

Case No. 21-P-00126. Jerold’s wife, Karen, was named the Executrix of the will

that was executed on June 10, 2016 (2016 Will).

Then, on February 22, 2022, counsel for Laura and John filed a

petition contesting the probate of the 2016 Will in the Pendleton Circuit Court.

Laura and John named Karen Lee Nelson, Personally and as Executrix of the

Estate of Jerold Charles Nelson (collectively referred to as Karen) and Lisa as

Respondents. The crux of Laura and John’s challenge to the probate of the 2016

Will was their belief that Jerold lacked the testamentary capacity to execute same.

In support thereof, Laura and John alleged that two days before the 2016 Will was

executed Jerold had been assaulted and suffered a concussion resulting in Jerold

lacking the capacity to execute the will. Laura and John further asserted that Jerold

was in the emergency room ten days after he executed the 2016 Will and

complained of an “ongoing headache from the assault with significant facial

-2- trauma and was diagnosed with a closed head injury-post concussive syndrome.”

February 22, 2022 Petition at 3; Trial Record (R.) at 3.

On January 30, 2024, Karen filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.

Laura filed a pro se response to the Motion for Summary Judgment and Karen

filed a reply. By Order entered March 5, 2024, the circuit court granted Karen’s

Motion for Summary Judgment. Laura and John then filed a Motion for

Reconsideration, which the circuit court denied by order entered April 6, 2024.

This appeal follows.

Appellants contend the circuit court abused its discretion by granting

summary judgment in favor of Karen as there exists genuine issues of material fact

surrounding whether Jerold possessed the testamentary capacity to execute the

2016 Will. Appellants also claim summary judgment was prematurely granted as

they were not provided the opportunity to complete discovery. Likewise,

Appellants assert they should have been granted an evidentiary hearing on Jerold’s

testamentary capacity as he had suffered a concussion two days before executing

the 2016 Will.

The law on testamentary capacity is well settled in Kentucky and was

aptly stated in Getty v. Getty, 581 S.W.3d 548 (Ky. 2019) as follows:

In Kentucky there is a strong presumption in favor of a testator possessing adequate testamentary capacity. This presumption can only be rebutted by the strongest

-3- showing of incapacity. Testamentary capacity is only relevant at the time of execution of a will. . . .

“Kentucky is committed to the doctrine of testatorial absolutism.” The practical effect of this doctrine is that the privilege of the citizens of the Commonwealth to draft wills to dispose of their property is zealously guarded by the courts and will not be disturbed based on remote or speculative evidence. The degree of mental capacity required to make a will is minimal. The minimum level of mental capacity required to make a will is less than that necessary to make a deed or a contract.

Id. at 554 (quoting Bye v. Mattingly, 975 S.W.2d 451, 455 (Ky. 1998)).

Summary judgment is appropriately granted where there are no

genuine issue of material fact and movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of

law. Steelvest, Inc. v. Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 482 (Ky.

1991); CR1 56.03. The trial court must view the evidence in the light most

favorable to the nonmoving party. Id. at 482. Particularly relevant to this appeal, a

properly supported motion for summary judgment will not be defeated unless the

nonmoving party is able to present some affirmative evidence that there is a

genuine issue of material fact. Id. Our appellate review will proceed de novo.

In her Motion for Summary Judgment, Karen asserted that

“[s]ummary judgment [could not] be avoided solely on the basis that a party hopes

to obtain evidence in the future that will create a genuine issue of material fact.”

1 Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure.

-4- R. at 381. Karen pointed out that (1) Laura and John had two years to obtain

discovery and had failed to do so; (2) Laura and John had taken Karen’s deposition

and propounded interrogatories which Karen answered; (3) Laura had refused to

answer Karen’s discovery requests; and (4) Laura had failed to produce any

evidence to support the claim that Jerold lacked testamentary capacity.

Laura filed a pro se response to the Motion for Summary Judgment

wherein she discussed topics that were frankly irrelevant to Jerold’s lack of

testamentary capacity. In fact, Laura failed to produce any affirmative evidence

that Jerold lacked the requisite testamentary capacity. Laura neglected to provide

the court with any documents, reports, witness lists, or exhibits to substantiate her

claim that Jerold lacked the testamentary capacity necessary to execute the 2016

Will. When John’s deposition was taken, he testified that he had no proof his

father lacked testamentary capacity when the 2016 Will was executed. And when

Laura’s deposition was taken, she refused to answer simple yes or no questions and

became argumentative with opposing counsel. As Laura failed to present any

affirmative evidence of a material issue of fact regarding Jerold’s testamentary

capacity to execute the 2016 Will, the circuit court properly granted summary

judgment in favor of Karen.

We view any remaining contentions of error as moot or without merit.

-5- For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the March 5, 2024 Order of the

Pendleton Circuit Court granting summary judgment in favor of Karen Lee Nelson,

Personally and as Executrix of the Estate of Jerold Charles Nelson.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANTS: BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Carl E. Knochelmann, Jr. Louise M. Brown Covington, Kentucky Foster, Kentucky

-6-