Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]

In re Wright’s Estate | 60 P.2d 434 (1936)

A testator must be of sound mind to execute a valid will. Generally, sound mind means that the testator is capable of knowing the nature and extent of his or her property, the natural objects of his or her bounty, and the disposition that he or she is making of that property. In the 1936 case In re Wright’s Estate, the California Supreme Court considered whether evidence of a testator’s abnormal behavior could prove that he wasn’t of sound mind when he executed his will.

In December 1931, Lorenzo Wright ran into Grace Thomas at the post office. Grace was a notary public and realtor who Lorenzo had worked with in the past. During this encounter, Lorenzo asked Grace if she would be willing to draft his will. Grace agreed to help Lorenzo for a fee, and about three weeks later, Lorenzo met with Grace at her office to discuss his wishes.

Grace drafted Lorenzo’s will and had both James Thomas and G. W. Madden sign as witnesses. In the will, Lorenzo devised most of his estate, including his house at 722 Nowita Place in Venice, California, to his friend Charlotte Hindmarch. Additionally, Lorenzo devised his house at 724 Nowita Place in Venice to his daughter, Maud Angell, and his interest in an undeveloped piece of property in Salt Lake City, Utah, to his granddaughter, Marjorie Angell. Finally, Lorenzo devised $1 to his grandson, son-in-law, and several other persons, relatives, or friends.

In May 1933, Lorenzo died. Following his death, Charlotte filed a petition to admit Lorenzo’s will to probate. Maud contested the will’s admission, arguing that Lorenzo lacked testamentary capacity to execute his will. In furtherance of her claim, Maud had numerous people, including Grace, Thomas, and Madden, testify that Lorenzo wasn’t of sound mind. Specifically, Maud presented testimony that Lorenzo was often drunk, offered someone a kerosene-soaked fish to eat, sporadically pretended to be dead, and once failed to acknowledge her on the street.

The probate court agreed with Maud and denied admission of Lorenzo’s will to probate. Charlotte then appealed the decision to the California Supreme Court.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

свернуть