In re Estate of Peterson
Nebraska Supreme Court
932 Neb. 105, 439 N.W.2d 516 (1989)

- Written by Melissa Hammond, JD
Facts
Bessie I. Peterson had four sons: Marvin, Dale, Eldon, and Donald Peterson. Bessie had another son, Francis J. Glinn, from another marriage. Francis, Marvin, and Dale (the contestants) (plaintiffs) sought to probate Bessie’s 1972 will and objected to a January 16, 1985, codicil. Eldon and Donald (the proponents) (defendants) were proponents of the codicil, which devised Bessie’s livestock and personal goods to Eldon and named him personal representative. Only Eldon had lived permanently on and managed the 14,000-acre livestock ranch. Bessie lived in a nursing home for some time and then died on January 25, 1985. In the month before she died, Bessie had good days and bad days. During the videotaped execution of the codicil, Bessie expressed to her attorney, James A. Lane, that she wanted to leave her cattle to Eldon because he had cared for her for many years and was a good manager. The contestants contended that the codicil was the result of Eldon’s undue influence and that Bessie lacked testamentary capacity. Nursing-home employees Teresa Gibson and Dora Caudy testified regarding Bessie’s capacity on the day the codicil was executed. Gibson testified that Bessie appeared to be asleep during the videotaping, while Caudy testified that she did not think Bessie knew what she was doing. Lane, meanwhile, testified that Bessie knew generally the extent of her property and why she was making the codicil. Charley Simineo, the nursing-home administrator, testified that elderly people often mixed up dates and occurrences but he did not believe this problem affected Bessie’s mental capacity. He also testified that he believed Bessie knew the natural objects of her bounty, the extent and nature of her property, and the nature of signing the codicil and understood the disposition of the property in the codicil. Donald testified that his mother was close to Eldon and that he had known for years what she intended to do. The district court sustained the proponents’ motion for a directed verdict on the issue of undue influence and overruled both parties’ motions for directed verdict on the issue of testamentary capacity. The jury found that Bessie had testamentary capacity, and the contestants appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Grant, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 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.