In re Estate of Raney

799 P.2d 986, 247 Kan. 359 (1990)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Estate of Raney

Kansas Supreme Court
799 P.2d 986, 247 Kan. 359 (1990)

Facts

Carl Edward Raney (known as Tag) was an alcoholic with anger problems. Tag’s wife, Rosa Lee Raney (Lee), divorced Tag in 1981 after decades of marriage because Tag’s alcoholism caused him to be physically and verbally abusive. Tag’s children with Lee, Virginia Cauthorn, Carl A. Raney, and Wayne L. Raney (collectively, Tag’s children) (plaintiffs), suffered abuse at Tag’s hands as well. Tag’s alcoholism escalated over the years, and he became unable to manage his financial affairs. Tag’s children obtained a conservatorship of Tag in 1985. Tag was angry, believing his children obtained the conservatorship to preserve his assets for their inheritance. Between 1985 to 1987, Tag was in treatment for his alcoholism and anger. Tag saw a psychiatrist, Dr. Bellows-Blakely. Dr. Bellows-Blakely concluded Tag had the capacity to manage his own affairs if he shifted his thoughts from his desire for revenge against his family to putting his life together. In 1987, while Tag was in jail, he executed a will. Tag’s will was drafted by his attorney, Evan Nightingale. Before Tag executed the will, Nightingale had Tag discuss his property and family. The will was witnessed by Nightingale’s partner, Shirley Kyner. Also present during the will’s execution were Stanton County Sheriff Garrison and Deputy Sheriff Rayna Jo Brown. All present later testified that Tag was of sound mind and competent at the time the will was executed. Tag’s will left only $25 to each of his children, and his remaining estate was left to his sisters (defendants). Tag died in 1988. Tag’s children challenged the 1987 will, arguing that Tag was under an insane delusion that his children had only established the conservatorship so that they could preserve his estate for themselves. The trial court agreed and found that Tag lacked testamentary capacity. Tag’s sisters appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Allegrucci, 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 820,000 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 820,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 989 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 820,000 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
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 989 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