In In Re Estate of Henry, 366 Ga. App. 638 (2023), Charles Henry executed a new Will in 2017, revoking his Will from 2007. Charles had divorced his previous wife, leaving substantially all of his estate to his two children, Tenika and LaRon. In 2011, Charles married Shirley. An antenuptial agreement was executed, although the details of that agreement do not appear in the Court’s opinion. Later, Charles suffered a spinal cord injury that left him wheel chair bound. Shirley worked full-time so she hired caregivers for Charles, one of whom was Charity.
On October 18, 2017, Charles executed a new Will at his attorney’s office in front of two disinterested witnesses. The new Will left “80 percent of the interest derived from his company and real estate in Kentucky to Shirley, and bequeathed the remaining 20 percent to Tenika and LaRon. For the remainder of his estate, including any bank accounts, he bequeathed 80 percent to Tenika and LaRon and 20 percent to Shirley.”
Charles died in 2018 and Shirley filed a petition to probate the 2017 Will. Tenika and LaRon filed a caveat alleging the 2017 Will was the product of undue influence. Discovery ensued and a year later Shirley filed a motion for summary judgment. In response, Tenika and LaRon “filed affidavits from Charity Graham (Henry’s caregiver) and James Haynes (one of Henry’s longtime friends). In those affidavits, both Graham and Haynes averred that Shirley was cruel to Henry in the months leading up to the execution of the 2017 will and thereafter. Indeed, according to Graham and Haynes, Shirley’s actions toward Henry made him fear for his own safety and want to leave her. Both further averred that Henry felt pressured to execute a new will despite having no desire to do so.”
The Probate Court nonetheless granted Shirley’s motion for summary judgment, presumably because there was no evidence of direct pressure at the time the Will was executed. An appeal followed and the Court of Appeals agreed that summary judgment was improperly granted.
Undue influence is usually proven using circumstantial evidence. “Thus, an attack on a will as having been obtained by undue influence may be supported by a wide range of testimony, including evidence of a confidential relation between the parties, the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the disposition of the testator’s estate, old age, or disease affecting the strength of the mind.” In light of allegations that Shirley was cruel to Charles and that Charles feared for his personal safety, the Court of Appeals described the Probate Court’s focus on the absence of evidence showing undue influence at the Will’s execution as “myopic.” “[E]vidence as to the facts and circumstances that occurred before and after the execution of the documents at issue may be considered by the trier of fact when determining whether undue influence existed at the time the documents were executed.” Further, character evidence is relevant when the grounds for a caveat include undue influence. The Probate Court erred by granting summary judgment.
