Evidence of undue influence required jury review in will dispute

The North Carolina Court of Appeals held that a trial court erred by granting a directed verdict for the propounder in a will caveat because the caveators presented more than a scintilla of evidence supporting undue influence and duress.

The dispute involved a revised will executed shortly before the decedent’s death from terminal cancer. The new will altered earlier estate plans by naming the decedent’s husband as a contingent beneficiary, despite prior language excluding him. Family members challenged the will, arguing that the change resulted from improper pressure while the decedent was physically and mentally vulnerable.

The court said the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the caveators, was sufficient for a jury. That evidence included the decedent’s declining condition, her dependence on the propounder, the propounder’s dissatisfaction with earlier estate plans, alleged pressure to revise the will, limited family access and circumstances surrounding the execution that conflicted with the decedent’s long-standing intent.

The court also held that the trial court improperly revisited its earlier denial of a directed verdict by weighing conflicting evidence after all evidence was presented. Because undue influence and duress depended on fact-intensive inferences, those issues belonged to the jury.

The 45 page opinion is In the Matter of the Last Will and Testament of West, Lawyers Weekly No. 011-093-26.