In re Estate of Laubenheimer

350 Wis. 2d 182, 833 N.W.2d 735 (2013)

From our private database of 46,600+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Estate of Laubenheimer

Wisconsin Supreme Court
350 Wis. 2d 182, 833 N.W.2d 735 (2013)

  • Written by Liz Nakamura, JD

Facts

Nancy and Luke Laubenheimer were married but did not have children. Nancy never adopted Luke’s children from his prior marriage. Nancy’s 1999 will left her entire estate to her stepchildren if Luke predeceased her. Luke died in 2001, and Nancy never altered her will. Around 2003, Joseph McLeod (defendant) came to live with Nancy. Nancy subsequently suffered multiple strokes and was admitted to a nursing home in 2008. Because Nancy’s doctors determined she lacked the capacity to make health care decisions, Nancy’s cousin, Diane Kulpa, acted as Nancy’s health care proxy pursuant to Nancy’s health care power of attorney. Nancy’s mental capacity never recovered. McLeod twice removed Nancy from the nursing home against medical advice, first to obtain a marriage license and then to solemnize the marriage. McLeod did not inform Nancy’s doctors or family about the wedding. After learning about the marriage, Patricia Laubenheimer (plaintiff), one of Nancy’s stepchildren, filed a petition for guardianship of Nancy, alleging that Nancy suffered from severe cognitive disability and that McLeod was financially exploiting her. The circuit court appointed Kulpa as Nancy’s guardian. Nancy then died, and McLeod and Patricia filed cross-petitions for administration of Nancy’s estate. McLeod argued that (1) Nancy’s 1999 will was invalid; (2) he was entitled to inherit her entire estate as her surviving spouse because Nancy had no children; and (3) his marriage to Nancy was not eligible for annulment after her death. Patricia countered, arguing that (a) the 1999 will was valid; and (b) Nancy’s death did not prevent the court from declaring her marriage to McLeod void based on Nancy’s mental incapacity to consent to the marriage. The trial court held the marriage could not be invalidated after Nancy’s death and granted McLeod’s probate petition. Patricia appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Prosser, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 834,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,600 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 834,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,600 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership