Oehlke v. Marks

Ohio Court of Appeals

Oehlke v. Marks

207 N.E.2d 676, 2 Ohio App. 2d 264, 31 Ohio Op. 2d 381, 1964 Ohio App. LEXIS 598

CourtOhio Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 17, 1964

Docket1623

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 207 N.E.2d 676 (Oehlke v. Marks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Oehlke v. Marks, 207 N.E.2d 676, 2 Ohio App. 2d 264, 31 Ohio Op. 2d 381, 1964 Ohio App. LEXIS 598 (Ohio Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Doyle, J.

This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Lorain County, sustaining the validity of the last will and testatment of Lena A. Oehlke, deceased, pursuant to the trial of an action to contest the will.

It is claimed that the court erred in not admitting “evidence of events and of the physical and mental condition of the testatrix within a reasonable time after the will.” The appellants state that such evidence “is admissible as throwing light on the subject of undue influence and on her mental condition at the time of the execution of the will. ’ ’

The case of Kennedy, Exr., v. Walcutt, 118 Ohio St. 442, establishes the general rule that: ‘ ‘ The mental condition of the testator at the time of making a will determines the testamentary capacity of such testator; and evidence of his mental and *266 physical condition within a reasonable time before and after the making of the will is admissible as throwing light on his mental condition at the time of the execution of the will in question.” (Paragraph two of the syllabus of the cited case.)

While the above syllabus establishes the law governing the facts of that particular case, nevertheless, there is no agreed definition of the limit of time within which such prior or subsequent condition is to be considered. The circumstances of each case must furnish the varying criterion; and, in the nature of things, it must fall upon the judgment of the trial judge to determine the competency of the evidence depicting conditions and circumstances subsequent to the execution of a will. It falls to the reasonable judgment of the trial judge to determine whether the time is so remote, or whether the circumstances have so changed, that evidence of subsequent events would not be deemed satisfactory evidence tending to show the person’s condition at the earlier period.

This court has examined the transcript of docket and journal entries, the bill of exceptions, and the briefs of counsel. From our study of the assigned errors in the light of the evidence and record (showing a drastic change of circumstances subsequent to the execution of the will), we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the claimed errors were not prejudicial to the rights of the contestants, and the judgment entered consonant to the verdict of the jury must be sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Hunsicker, P. J., and Stevens, J., concur.

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

Doyle, J.

This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment entered upon the verdict of a jury in the Court of Common Pleas of Lorain County, sustaining the validity of the last will and testatment of Lena A. Oehlke, deceased, pursuant to the trial of an action to contest the will.

It is claimed that the court erred in not admitting “evidence of events and of the physical and mental condition of the testatrix within a reasonable time after the will.” The appellants state that such evidence “is admissible as throwing light on the subject of undue influence and on her mental condition at the time of the execution of the will. ’ ’

The case of Kennedy, Exr., v. Walcutt, 118 Ohio St. 442, establishes the general rule that: ‘ ‘ The mental condition of the testator at the time of making a will determines the testamentary capacity of such testator; and evidence of his mental and *266 physical condition within a reasonable time before and after the making of the will is admissible as throwing light on his mental condition at the time of the execution of the will in question.” (Paragraph two of the syllabus of the cited case.)

While the above syllabus establishes the law governing the facts of that particular case, nevertheless, there is no agreed definition of the limit of time within which such prior or subsequent condition is to be considered. The circumstances of each case must furnish the varying criterion; and, in the nature of things, it must fall upon the judgment of the trial judge to determine the competency of the evidence depicting conditions and circumstances subsequent to the execution of a will. It falls to the reasonable judgment of the trial judge to determine whether the time is so remote, or whether the circumstances have so changed, that evidence of subsequent events would not be deemed satisfactory evidence tending to show the person’s condition at the earlier period.

This court has examined the transcript of docket and journal entries, the bill of exceptions, and the briefs of counsel. From our study of the assigned errors in the light of the evidence and record (showing a drastic change of circumstances subsequent to the execution of the will), we are of the opinion, and so hold, that the claimed errors were not prejudicial to the rights of the contestants, and the judgment entered consonant to the verdict of the jury must be sustained.

Judgment affirmed.

Hunsicker, P. J., and Stevens, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 N.E.2d 676, 2 Ohio App. 2d 264, 31 Ohio Op. 2d 381, 1964 Ohio App. LEXIS 598, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oehlke-v-marks-ohioctapp-1964.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack