In re Kaufmann’s Will case brief summary
247 N.Y.S.2d 664 (1964)
CASE FACTS
The testator had inherited his wealth from his parents. Although his brother had managed the family fortune and the testator had taken no business responsibilities, he had been intimately and warmly associated with the family. After living with his brother, the testator moved away to set up his own establishment. The devisee and the testator met and entered an agreement under which the devisee would advise and consult the testator on financial and business matters. The devisee eventually moved into the testator's apartment and took full charge of the establishment. The testator alienated himself from and disinherited his family members. The trial jury found that the bequests under the will were a product of the undue influence of the devisee.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the denial of probate of the testator's will.
Suggested Study Aids For Wills, Trusts & Estate Law
247 N.Y.S.2d 664 (1964)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant devisee sought
review of a decree of the New York County Surrogate's Court, which
denied probate of the testator's will in favor of appellee family
members.CASE FACTS
The testator had inherited his wealth from his parents. Although his brother had managed the family fortune and the testator had taken no business responsibilities, he had been intimately and warmly associated with the family. After living with his brother, the testator moved away to set up his own establishment. The devisee and the testator met and entered an agreement under which the devisee would advise and consult the testator on financial and business matters. The devisee eventually moved into the testator's apartment and took full charge of the establishment. The testator alienated himself from and disinherited his family members. The trial jury found that the bequests under the will were a product of the undue influence of the devisee.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the trial court, holding that the devisee had exploited his arrangement with the testator to advance his own selfish interests.
- The devisee falsely testified that he first learned that he was a testamentary beneficiary after the testator's death, although evidence consisting of letters, other memorandum, and testimony indicated that the devisee was involved with the will and transfer of insurance policies.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the denial of probate of the testator's will.
Suggested Study Aids For Wills, Trusts & Estate Law
No comments:
Post a Comment