In re Honigman's Will case brief summary
8 N.Y.2d 244
SYNOPSIS: Appellant widow sought review of an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (New York) which reversed the decision of the surrogate court denying probate to an instrument offered as the will of the deceased.
OVERVIEW: The decedent was survived by appellant widow and when his will was offered for probate, the widow filed objections. The surrogate court denied probate. Upon appeal, the surrogate court's decree was reversed upon the law and the facts. On appeal to this court again reversed, holding that the appellate division usurped the jury's function in setting aside the surrogate court's verdict.
HOLDING:
The court read the record as containing more than enough competent proof to warrant submitting to the jury the issue of the decedent's testamentary capacity.
ANALYSIS:
The decedent, at the time he made his will, was suffering from an unwarranted and insane delusion that appellant was unfaithful to him, which condition affected the disposition made in the will. This belief was an obsession which clearly was established by a preponderance of the competent evidence and, prima facie, there was presented a question of fact as to whether it affected the will he made shortly before his death. Therefore, the order appealed from had to be reversed and a new trial was granted.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the decision of the appellate division which reversed the decision of the surrogate court to deny probate of an instrument. The court stated that there was competent evidence established to present a question of fact concerning appellant widow's deceased husband's testamentary capacity, thus the matter should have been presented to a jury. A new trial was ordered.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
8 N.Y.2d 244
SYNOPSIS: Appellant widow sought review of an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court (New York) which reversed the decision of the surrogate court denying probate to an instrument offered as the will of the deceased.
OVERVIEW: The decedent was survived by appellant widow and when his will was offered for probate, the widow filed objections. The surrogate court denied probate. Upon appeal, the surrogate court's decree was reversed upon the law and the facts. On appeal to this court again reversed, holding that the appellate division usurped the jury's function in setting aside the surrogate court's verdict.
HOLDING:
The court read the record as containing more than enough competent proof to warrant submitting to the jury the issue of the decedent's testamentary capacity.
ANALYSIS:
The decedent, at the time he made his will, was suffering from an unwarranted and insane delusion that appellant was unfaithful to him, which condition affected the disposition made in the will. This belief was an obsession which clearly was established by a preponderance of the competent evidence and, prima facie, there was presented a question of fact as to whether it affected the will he made shortly before his death. Therefore, the order appealed from had to be reversed and a new trial was granted.
OUTCOME: The court reversed the decision of the appellate division which reversed the decision of the surrogate court to deny probate of an instrument. The court stated that there was competent evidence established to present a question of fact concerning appellant widow's deceased husband's testamentary capacity, thus the matter should have been presented to a jury. A new trial was ordered.
In re
Honigman (N.Y. 1960) [21 CB 150]: Testator had for a long time believed his wife was
unfaithful doing such things as hiding men in closets and bringing them up to
her 2d-story room by use of sheets. Judge
allowed jury to determine testator’s sanity, and they responded that he had
insane delusions. Rule: In light of the
evidence provided regarding testator’s obsessive beliefs, there is a question
of fact properly for the jury regarding testator’s mental capacity.
i. Testator in this case took very steps to
disinherit wife, leaving her a share of his estate sufficiently large to
prevent her from exercising elective share
ii. Insane delusion can be proved based on
testator’s unreasonable adherence to a particular belief in light of contrary
evidence (issue isn’t whether wife was unfaithful, but whether testator had
reasonable grounds for believing that)
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment