In the Matter of the Purported Last Will and Testament of Margaret Stewart Stotlar
Delaware Court of Chancery
1987 WL 6091 (1987)

- Written by Melissa Hammond, JD
Facts
Margaret S. Stotlar had a prolonged history of severe alcohol abuse prior to her death in 1985. She had three children: James C. Stotlar Jr., Pamela Stotlar Cook (plaintiffs), and Stewart T. Stotlar (defendant). The matter was before the court on a will contest regarding the viability wills executed on January 25, 1983, and September 13, 1983, both of which favored Stewart and disfavored or disinherited Pamela and James, and a codicil executed on January 4, 1984, which was executed while Stewart was taking Margaret to the hospital where she was diagnosed with possible hepatic encephalopathy. There was no videotape of the execution of that codicil. The evidence included a September 2, 1983, videotape, which showed that Margaret did not understand the nature of her investments, and a September 13, 1983, videotape, in which her attorney did not mention her assets. The evidence also indicated that because of Margaret’s alcohol consumption, she experienced a continual progressive cognitive decline. The issues before the court were whether Margaret’s continual, excessive use of alcohol affected her testamentary capacity when she executed these documents and whether her alcohol use enabled Stewart to exercise undue influence over her.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hartnett, 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.