McDaniel v. McDaniel - 288 Ga. 711, 707 S.E.2d 60 (2011)

Rule:

The type of fraud that will invalidate a will must be fraud which operates upon the testator, i.e., a procurement of the execution of the will by misrepresentations made to him. It exists only when it is shown that the testator relied on such a representation and was deceived. 

Facts:

In this probate case, the propounder filed a petition for probate in solemn form to have a 2007 will declared the testator's last will and testament. The caveator challenged the will on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity, undue influence, and fraud. A jury found that the 2007 will was the product of undue influence and fraud, and the probate court entered judgment on the verdict. In Case No. S10A1497, the propounder appeals, contending that the probate court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict on undue influence and fraud and, in the alternative, that a new trial is required due to erroneous evidentiary rulings. In Case No. S10X1498, the caveator filed a defensive cross-appeal, asserting error in the exclusion of testimony by a doctor who treated the decedent and two instances of alleged instructional error. 

Issue:

Was there sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that the will was procured by fraud?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The supreme court held that the evidence regarding the circumstances and surroundings of the testator and his associations authorized the jury's finding that the will was the product of undue influence and fraud under O.C.G.A. § 53-4-12. The caveator moved in with the testator and his wife, his parents, and provided the care they needed with little help from the propounder. The propounder and his wife encouraged the caveator and his wife to leave the State for a vacation, and in their absence the propounder poisoned the testator's mind against the caveator, telling the testator falsely that the caveator had stolen all his money, that he was broke, and that the caveator had abandoned him and would not return. Acting under the influence of the propounder and his wife, the testator secured a restraining order that prevented the caveator from seeing him for six months after the caveator returned, and the propounder made sure that the caveator was never left alone with the testator again. The testator's will radically changed the distribution of the estate envisioned by the testator's in a previous will. The testator changed his will to disinherit the caveator completely.