Moriarty v. Moriarty - 150 N.E.3d 616 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020)

Rule:

Initially, we note that any interested person may contest the validity of a will based on 1) the unsoundness of mind of the testator; 2) the undue execution of the will; 3) that the will was executed under duress or was obtained by fraud; or 4) any other valid objection to the will's validity or the probate of the will." Ind. Code § 29-1-7-17. The burden of proof in a will contest is on the opponent of the will. Ind. Code § 29-1-7-20. Also, undue influence is defined as 'the exercise of sufficient control over the person, the validity of whose act is brought into question, to destroy his free agency and constrain him to do what he would not have done if such control had not been exercised.

Facts:

William and Doreen Moriarty were the appellee’s, Catherine C. Moriarty and Paula A. Bowers, parents. In April 2016, Doreen died. Appellees had close relationships with both parents. One of the appellees, had two children who both had loving relationships with their grandparents. Appellant Mary Eve Kassen Moriarty, who had met William when Doreen was still living, began dating him within weeks after Doreen died. Appellee learned about appellant in an email from her father but did not realize that they were dating. Appellees noticed a change in their relationship with their father. In October 2016, appellant married William. On April 6, 2017, William executed the Purported Will. The will directed all tangible personal property and the entire residue of William's estate to be distributed to appellant if she survives him and nominated appellant to serve as personal representative of his estate. The Purported Will also provide that if appellant does not survive William, then the personal property and residue of his estate are to be distributed to appellees, per stirpes. The Purported Will included a self-proving clause. One month later, William died. Appellees filed a verified petition for supervised administration of William's estate. The following day, appellant filed a petition for probate of the Purported Will without court supervision. Ultimately, the two causes were consolidated, and a special administrator was appointed. Appellees initiated the underlying action by filing a verified complaint alleging that the Purported Will was invalid because William was of unsound mind when he executed it and/or the Purported Will was a product of undue influence and alleging that appellant tortiously interfered with their inheritance. Prior to trial, appellees requested that the trial court issue findings and conclusions thereon pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 52(A). The trial court entered judgment in favor of appellees on their claim to reject the probate of the purported last will and testament of their father on the basis of lack of testamentary capacity and/or undue influence and on their claim of tortious interference with inheritance. Appellant thus argued that the trial court abused its discretion at trial by allowing appellees to reopen their case-in-chief to call her as a witness. She also argued that the trial court's legal conclusions are clearly erroneous.

Issue:

Did the trial court err in holding the purported will invalid?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the judgment. The court held that appellees bore the burden of proof on the issues they raised. Testamentary capacity and undue influence represent two separate grounds for invalidating a will, in this case, the trial court found that the Purported Will was invalid on both grounds. Thus, if the judgment can be supported on either ground, the court may affirm. And the Court concluded that William lacked the mental capacity to determine appellees deserts, with respect to their treatment of and conduct toward him. Accordingly, the Court concluded that William lacked sufficient mental capacity to validly execute the Purported Will. Also, the court found that William was susceptible to undue influence, that appellant exercised undue influence over him at the time he executed the Purported Will, and the will was the product of undue influence.