Pool v. Estate of Shelby
Oklahoma Supreme Court
821 P.2d 361 (1991)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Bessie Shelby had two sons, Kenneth Pool and W. C. Pool (collectively, the Pool brothers) (defendants), and one daughter, Louise Creekmore (plaintiff). In 1979 Shelby executed a will giving the majority of her estate to Creekmore. Five months later, in 1980, Shelby saw Patrick Brown, an attorney. Kenneth Pool had contacted Brown because Shelby wanted to regain some property she had given to Creekmore. After discussing the property, Brown asked Shelby about her estate. Shelby told Brown that she did not have a will and wanted her estate divided up equally among her children according to intestate succession. Accordingly, Brown had Shelby execute a document intended to be an affidavit of revocation. The affidavit stated that Shelby did not have a will and that if she had unknowingly executed a will, then she declared that will void. Shelby signed the affidavit, two other individuals signed as witnesses, and the affidavit was notarized. The affidavit did not contain an attestation clause. After Shelby’s death, Creekmore sought to admit Shelby’s 1979 will to probate. The Pool brothers argued that Shelby’s will had been revoked by the 1980 affidavit. The trial court admitted the will, holding that Shelby’s 1979 will was valid and the lack of an attestation clause meant the revocation was invalid. The court of appeals affirmed, and the Pool brothers appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Simms, J.)
Dissent (Wilson, 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.