Lipper v. Weslow 369 S.W.2d 698 (1963)

Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Lipper v. Weslow 369 S.W.2d 698 (1963) (Citation Omitted)
To make invalidations on a will in contemplation to undue influence, verification of facts must be present to show a preparation of testamentary temperament by the rest, for instance, the will of the testatrix.
RELEVANT CASE FACTS
Three grandchildren of decedent challenged are based on an accusation of unjustified influence. The summation of the rule of law states that the test of the unnecessary influence takes place over the mind of the testatrix to act in a manner that could have been avoidable. For instance, Sophie Block who was the decedent had been married three times. After the death of the first husband, children of her first son who had died became plaintiffs of the left estate.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The will was contested on the grounds of undue influence (Dukeminier, Jesse, & Sitkoff, 109).
. The decedent married Mr. Lipper and bore Frank and Irene Lipper who happen to be defendants. After the death of Mr. Lipper, the decedent married Mr. Block Max but bore no children from the marriage
ISSUE
The issue was if there was any form of evidence with regards to undue influence on a will that was well drafted by a lawyer who also occurs to be a beneficiary of the will. The jury had determined that the decedents will have been procured with consideration of undue influence on the side of Lipper as a defendant.
HOLDING
It was held that the cause was to be rendered and reversed for the defendants.

The circumstances and the will raised suspicion but did not give sufficient facts on the undue evidence.
ANALYSIS
Sophie had established that a confidential relationship existed as Frank had the opportunity and motive for undue influence. With consideration of all facts, evidence reflected that the decedent had been found to be of sound mind, excellent physical condition, and of strong will (Dukeminier, Jesse, & Sitkoff, 67). Subsequent to the will’s execution, the decedent indicated to the three unwilling witnesses on what she planned with her property in the will and why she decided so.
CONCURRENCE
To sum up, the decedents made weird disposition on the property in a manner that gave her children more priority as compared to her grandchildren. Regardless, the decedent had a right in her decision as she later explained on why she decided to do so. An individual of sound mind has legal obligations of disposing of a property based on personal wish as the resistant is left with the duty to prove that the decision was based on undue influence.
Work Cited
Dukeminier, Jesse, and Robert H. Sitkoff. Wills, trusts, and estates. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2014.